Why I'm not a superfan of AOC

[crimycarny]

I ran across a tweet from AOC demanding that the Chair of NY Democrats, Jay Jacobs, should resign over his "disgusting comments comparing a single Black Mother who won a historic election to David Duke."

Link to tweet

?s=20

This piqued my interest so I found a quote of what he said and he absolutely did nothing of the sort. AOC has been a champion of India Walton, the candidate that AOC claims Jay Jacobs compared to David Duke. Jay Jacobs chose not to endorse Inda Walton despite her winning the primary. I have no idea why, but the statement he made which AOC is trying to spin is basically saying he doesn't have to endorse someone just because they are a Democrat. AOC is now calling for his resignation and contorting his statement to make her case. That's a GOP thing, to stir up hatred and anger to get an outcome. I do not like this at all and it makes me suspect of AOC's motives from here on out.

We should be better than this.

Below is a tweet that includes the statement Jay Jacobs made.

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Hoyt]

1. Get distinction in what he actually said, but would like to hear reason for not endorsing Walton.

[The Magistrate]

19. Several Reasons Off-Hand, Sir

She is a black woman.

She is an activist, has some DSA associations,

She beat the machine fair and square in a primary.

Here in Chicago, when Mr. Washington won his first primary, we had the party precinct workers coming around tout voting for the Republican nominee.

[brooklynite]

45. Being a black woman has nothing to do with this issue...

Andrea Stewart-Cousins, the head of the State Senate is a Black Woman. There are dozens of Democratic Black women supported by the Party in all levels of State and Local office. This issue at hand is whether the nominee, a self-described Democratic Socialist (supported by Nina Turner) is too far to the left for the Party to get behind.

Now, let’s be clear about something. There Is no Democratic Party to get behind her or not. Outside of Jay Jacobs, there is almost no Party leadership, because that was how Andrew Cuomo wanted it. Jacobs is pretty much expressing his personal opinion and nothing else.

[AZProgressive]

47. Using a David Duke analogy has a lot to do with it

I can totally see why India Walton and others including Schumer would be bothered by it.

[The Magistrate]

51. I Know There Are, Sir

Which is why shit-heel stands out....

[lapucelle]

97. I'm busy working to get Democrats elected and re-elected in NY on the county level this year.

I'm not sure where you're volunteering, but there is party leadership in my office.

[brooklynite]

104. AT the local level, maybe. Not the State Committee, which Jacobs is in charge of.

That said, there isn’t much Party structure in NYC either. The County Committees are pretty weak, most volunteer support comes form the campaigns themselves or the local autonomous CLubs.

[lapucelle]

108. I know who Jay Jacobs is. I've been working out of his office for years

at the county committee level.

[Hav]

22. Probably the real reason:

The incumbent Dem who didn't win the primary is trying to win through a write-in campaign and there's apparently no Repub running.

[The Magistrate]

26. And That Ain't Kosher, Friend

The primary in such a case is the election. He lost. This is just a bit of a squalid local machine boss trying to keep his snout in the trough for him and his pals.

It's not to be given the sort of dignity a genuine political dispute is accorded.

[Dorian Gray]

146. I agree

the quote didn't explain what he didn't like about her politics that led him to not endorse.

Having said that, AOC has a gift for sound bites creating a ripple effect. It's effective twitter strategy. You rile people up, you raise money from them, you gain popularity and notoriety. It's part of the Trump gameplan. It's not serious about governing or reaching consensus or building a coalition of supporters.

I am not an AOC superan bc I am not a superman of any government official. They work for us. We will NOT agree with them 100% of the time, and it is our duty as their constituents (on a local or national level) to hold their feet to the fire and tell them what would serve us best.

AOC is GOOD at PR and moving the conversation needle. The Dems can use that skill, hone it for messaging purposes and to move the needle. But she has the propensity to serve herself over the party and we should all question that when it goes against our own interests.

Mayor of Buffalo doesn't make much difference to me in NYC. But what is this kerfuffle signifying? Old guard v New Guard? Or is it a simple matter of progressives v. center left?

[vanlassie]

2. Bringing up David Duke, then denying he was in any way making a comparison.....

THAT’S GOP style. I find his comments disingenuous and disgusting. I’m with AOC.

[ColinC]

5. Same

[luckone]

20. +++ Thank you Same.

[PurgedVoter]

128. Again Same

I know that lingo and twist from way back. He insinuated quite clearly that she was every bit as bad as David Duke. That is the context and it is very, very clear to someone who grew up in a place where that sort of language is often used.

[questionseverything]

3. So the chair of ny democrats doesn't have to endorse the democratic primary winner?

He should step down

What’s his problem with walton?

[JustAnotherGen]

4. I've donated to Brown

I'm from that side of NY State (moved to NJ for economic opportunity in 2004) -

Brown is the best Mayor they ever had. I personally know republicans writing him in - as well as long time (life) Democratic party members.

#WriteDownByronBrown

It's nothing against AOC.

[H2O Man]

6. gosh

[George II]

41. Kahuna754 has been a member in good standing on Democratic Underground since 2002....

....virtually a charter member. And if you look at the tweet you'd see that Kahuna754 is not a "he", she's a WOMAN (see below)!

I think if you want to bash tweets of hers you should do it on Twitter, not here on Democratic Underground.

Plus, he did NOT compare her to David Duke, in fact he did and said the opposite. People should look at his exact quote and context:

“Let’s take a scenario, a very different,, where David Duke, you remember him, the grand wizard of the KKK, he moves to New York. He becomes a Democrat. He runs for mayor in the city of Rochester, which has a low primary turnout, and he wins the Democratic line. I have to endorse David Duke? I don’t think so. Of course, India Walton isn’t in the same category,” Jacobs said on Spectrum News.

Finally, he has apologized anyway.

[Celerity]

43. I never referred to Kahuna754 as a 'he', and that tweet is gaslighting 101

he goddamn well compared her to Duke, he compared not endorsing her to not endorsing Duke, which is a clear implication that they are both odious.

was referring to Jay Jacobs

[George II]

46. You're right about the "he", your "he" referred to the NYS Democratic Chairman. Sorry about that...

...but did you read his ENTIRE quote, he twice mention that the situation with India Walton is entirely different than David Duke:

"Let’s take a scenario, a very different..."

"Of course, India Walton isn’t in the same category..."

[Celerity]

49. the very use of Duke in a comparative scenario is odious, despite attempts to 'qualify' it

[George II]

52. Does anyone here recall the comparison the person in the OP made 2 years ago?

She compared migrant detention facilities to concentration camps, angering many American Jews including the Auschwitz Memorial Twitter Account. She even used the expression used by liberated Jews and Israel since WWII - "never again".

How much less odious is that?

[AZProgressive]

54. Do you have a comment on Trump's migrant camps?

When I look up concentration camps on Wiki it redirects me to internment camps and when I scroll down to current examples I see Trump’s migrants camp.

Let’s be clear she was bashing Trump’s policies FFS

[Dorian Gray]

147. I'd like to challenge thinking here a bit

I don't think they're Trump's migrant camps. They exist in the USA, and they are still open. They are American camps. Trump's policies were more stringent and cruel than the Obama's and Biden's. Biden walked some of them back. But the camps are still there. They're still overcrowded. And the migrants are still being treated like shit.

This is an American problem, and we need to own it to fix it.

[Celerity]

59. she never made a reference to the Nazi and Jews, that was what the Rethugs tried to gin up

see the discussion below (the OP and you seem to be on the same page when it comes to trying to slate AOC)


https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15967664

[Celerity]

62. Also, if we do take the Rethug's faux-rage at face value (as AOC was ripping Trump) the exact same

white power ideology animates/animated both Trump and the Nazis.

So no, I find nothing 'odious' about AOC said when she ripped Trump, whatever the framing is.

[George II]

78. Many non-"Rethugs" were angered as well. A number of prominent Jewish Organizations and....

...Jewish historians were angered as well, especially when she tossed in "never again".

Getting back to the point, the Chairman of the NYS Democratic party never compared India Walton to David Duke. In fact, as I showed by posting his entire comment, while he was saying it he said twice that there's no comparison.

No one can logically say that this statement compares the two. He makes a clear distinction that they are not comparable.

“Let's take a scenario, very different, where David Duke, you remember him, the grand wizard of the KKK, he moves to New York, he becomes a Democrat, he runs for mayor in the city of Rochester, which is a low primary turnout and he wins the Democratic line. I have to endorse David Duke? I don't think so,” Jacobs said. “Now, of course, India Walton is not in the same category"

[Celerity]

79. I disagree on both counts. People are free to be outraged or not, I come down no outrage

side, as do many. The vast majority of the outrage came from the Rethugs, and as for the non Rethugs who were, well I disagree with them.

I regards to Jacobs, his attempt at qualification did not remove the dog whistle.

Whilst you are having a go at AOC, perhaps have one at Schumer too.


Schumer calls New York State Democratic Chair's hypothetical scenario about David Duke when referencing India Walton "outrageous and beyond absurd"

https://www.businessinsider.com/schumer-new-york-democratic-chair-india-walton-david-duke-2021-10?r=US&IR=T

[crimycarny]

101. Schumer referenced the tweet--not the person

Schumer took issue with Jay Jacobs's tweet but refrained from calling Jay Jacobs a racist and misogynist. AOC felt no such restraint. If AOC had left it at her indignation at Jay Jacob's tweet as well as her frustration with a Dem Party chair not endorsing a candidate, that's one thing, but calling him a racist and misogynist is quite another and better d*mm well be true if she is going to make those claims.

[Celerity]

103. Meaningless pettifogging, and I find nothing wrong with what AOC said, she is spot on.

Also, to engage in the same methodological template you are attempting to employ in order to introduce a false cleavage between AOC and Schumer, she never directly called Jacobs a racist nor a misogynist.

Funny thing that, a granular dissection of linguistic syntax cuts both ways.

What's good for the goose.......... and all that.

[stopdiggin]

116. +1. and thanks.

and this seemingly casual relationship with what really took place - is pretty much the point the OP is trying to illustrate.

It is entirely fair game (IMO) to scream bloody murder and torch the guy for a lack of endorsement. Solid politics. But insisting that he compared Walton to Duke, when he was clearly at some pains not to - is just mischaracterization. And that I don't care for.

[vanlassie]

133. If you are going to defend that comment, seriously,

can you give an even halfway “logical” argument for why you think someone would even make such a (“VERY different, of course…”) comparison? It’s absurd, unless you can enlighten me to something I am missing.

[Nixie]

151. Thank goodness you posted the exact quote, which

is just a simplistic analogy. We don’t need the unnecessary showmanship over this.

[Kahuna]

63. I stand by my tweet. I have been a registered Democrat for over 45 years...

And you?

[Celerity]

71. I have been a registered Dem since I was 18. I have no idea who on Twitter is DU member or not.

We enter into very nebulous territory when different platforms start to cross-pollinate and then inferences and different sets of rules are attempted to be applied.

There is a small group here who post tweets from a DU-banned (and multiple times-banned on Twitter and most all platforms) hyper troll, thus skirting a direct DU ban of that person.

Like I said, it is nebulous.

[Kahuna]

73. Whatever. You think too much. Give it a rest. nt

[Celerity]

76. You are the one who keeps coming at me. I did nothing wrong, plus I took it down a common

courtesy towards a fellow DU'er, which again, I had no clue was the case.

[Kahuna]

69. Don't bring my twitter over here. You could just as easily make your feelings known on twitter...

where I can tell you where to go without getting banned on DU.

[Celerity]

75. I did not bring it over here, the OP did, take it up with them. I had no idea that that Twitter

account was a DUer (ie. you, in this case)

I can hardly be held to account for that when it was never mentioned.

You cannot play 'mix-and-match' with platforms and try and hold me to DU rules when all I did was comment on a NON-DU Tweet that the OP (not me) used.

[sheshe2]

82. ...

[Kahuna]

68. Thank you George II. NT

[Mosby]

8. AOC compared detention centers to Nazi death camps.

He made a bad analogy and said this:

Jacobs said in his statement apologizing hours later that he was “using an extreme example” but it was wrong.

“I should have used a different example, and for that, I apologize,” he said.

[AZProgressive]

33. I think she said concentration camps

Those predate Nazi death camps and Trump wanted to gas immigrants according to the author of A Warning by Anonymous who is no longer anonymous.

[Celerity]

56. she never said 'Nazi death camps' when talking about Trump's border detention centres

that was what the Rethugs tried to say she said

The Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez concentration camp debate, explained

https://www.jta.org/2019/06/18/united-states/the-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-concentration-camp-debate-explained

NEW YORK (JTA) — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez raised a ruckus when she said detention centers holding undocumented immigrants on the southern border are “concentration camps.” “The U.S. is running concentration camps on our southern border, and that is exactly what they are,” the freshman New York Democrat said Monday night in an Instagram Live video. “If that doesn’t bother you … I want to talk to the people that are concerned enough with humanity to say that ‘never again’ means something.” She tweeted the same message on Tuesday.

“This administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants, where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying,” she wrote. “This is not hyperbole. It is the conclusion of expert analysis.”

Link to tweet

Ocasio-Cortez then linked to an Esquire article quoting Andrea Pitzer, author of “One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps.” Pitzer asserts, as she did in an interview with JTA last year, that what the government calls federal migrant shelters or detainment facilities fit her definition of concentration camps: “mass detention of civilians without trial.”

The congresswoman’s critics, mostly but not exclusively on the right, said Ocasio-Cortez has to know that using the term “concentration camp” invariably invites comparisons to the Nazis. And by doing so, they insist, she not only exaggerates what is happening in the detention facilities but belittles the ways Jews suffered when the Nazis turned their concentration camps into death camps.

snip

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/18/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-concentration-camps-migrants-detention/index.html

Ocasio-Cortez also referenced how some migrant children were being held in facilities formerly used to detain Japanese Americans during World War II. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services, which is tasked with caring for unaccompanied migrant children, said it would use facilities at Fort Sill Army Base in Oklahoma to house minors. The base, which once held an internment camp for Japanese Americans, was used during the Obama administration for migrant children as well.

[Mariana]

70. Link, please, to AOC comparing detentions centers to Nazi death camps. nt.

[Kahuna]

74. I don't know. What did happen to those people on Nazi concentration camps?

[Mariana]

77. Concentration camps were a thing long before the Nazis.

Here is what she said:

This administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants, where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying.

This is not hyperbole. It is the conclusion of expert analysis.

Link to tweet

?s=20

Please stop spreading lies.

[SunImp]

80. 1+

[Mosby]

89. The term "concentration camps" has long been associated with

Nazi death camps because that's what they were. AOC is splitting hairs by using the European understanding of the term.

[Celerity]

107. +2

[cilla4progress]

9. Agree with AOC and above posters.

This is in the "dog whistle" category, if you ask me.

[The Magistrate]

10. Extremely Weak Effort, Sir

When you justify not supporting the Party's nominee by asking, hey if Duke won would you want me to support him' you are in fact likening the nominee to the klansman.

Which is really beside the point. This person is a leader of the local Party, and does not support the Party's nominee. He should be bounced out of office on the spot.

Rep Ocasio-Cortez is saying here hat every mainline Democrat is inclined to say when confronted by such misuse of Party office.

[Hav]

17. It was mentioned in another thread that there isn't any Repub running

but instead there's another Dem, the incumbent I think, going for a write-in campaign. This is a bit different than the typical Dem vs Rep race.

[The Magistrate]

24. It's A Party Primary, Sir

She beat the incumbent in the primary. He is not the Party nominee, and the Party organization ought to support the Party's nominee.

This is a jurisdiction in which the party primary really is the election. This nothing more or less than an old school machine refusing to accept the verdict of the voters. The man lost, he should stand down, retire on his investments and cultivate hobbies.

[Hav]

27. I understand that and I hated Lieberman for that when he lost his primary

I'm just saying, when someone thinks he has that much support that he can win a write-in, then that will be the will of the voters, too, in contrast to low turnout primaries.

[The Magistrate]

31. Yet You Defend This Imitator, Sir

[jcgoldie]

11. Well if he wasn't "comparing her to David Duke"...

He was at the very least making an especially dumbass and offensive analogy...

[wellst0nev0ter]

12. We know how to read, thank you

Jay Jacobs was definitely comparing India to David Duke, in that Jacob thinks she is as equally toxic as him.

Jacobs should resign.

[crimycarny]

38. Oh, I didn't realize you had direct insight into his meaning

We can both read, and we can both come to our own conclusions. The only person who knows for sure is Jay Jacobs.

Jay Jacobs has since clarified that was not his meaning.

[wellst0nev0ter]

160. We should believe everything we hear

from the defendant at a criminal trial. Who needs critical thinking?

[Patton French]

13. Don't blame her at all.

He’s the one who brought up Duke when justifying his non-endorsement of India Walton.

[Hav]

14. Yes, nuance matters

He tried to make a point for his position by presenting the extreme and asking whether what was asked of him would be still valid. It wasn't the wisest decision, especially given the circumstances, but it's a common rhetorical device.
This is a disadvantage of using the extreme to illustrate a point but he definitely didn't compare a black woman to David Duke when he specifically made it clear that he was presenting a very different scenario.

[unblock]

30. problem is that appears to be his only explanation for not backing her

if he made it clear that there were x, y, and z reasons not to back her, assuming those were legitimate, objective, and not controversial, and then was addressing a rather unrelated question as to whether or not he really should be supporting 100% of all new york democratic candidates, then maybe it could have been ok.

but juxtaposing the two concepts, without a clear explanation of the actual reasons for not supporting her, and especially muddling the two question, was terrible.

and keep in mind his role should be helping new york democratic candidates, not refusing to support them, and most definitely not creating p.r. messes like this. in fact, someone in his role should be teaching new york democratic candidates how to *not* step in it like he just did.

[Hav]

36. Agreed, when you make a decision, have the guts to defend it

Especially in such a position. Some try to be clever and just dig their own grave. It seems that the reason is so simple: He doesn't want to endorse the winner of the primary because he prefers another Dem launching a write-in. But for some reason he cannot say that.

[crimycarny]

48. I agree with all you say

And I appreciate your non-bashing way of explaining your take on it.

I agree 100% that Jay Jacobs should have stated his reasons clearly (x, y, and z) versus making some stupid analogy. But despite using an analogy that could easily be misinterpreted, I also don't think jumping to the conclusion that Jacobs is a "racist, misogynistic, Old Boy's club" is helpful either (which is what AOC wrote).

[unblock]

53. she implied that the statement was racist and misogynistic, not necessarily him.

though she did imply he was part of the "old boy's club".

i don't have any problem with this. the statement certainly had racist and misogynistic overtones and his refusal to support a black woman new york democratic candidate with no explanation other than that he wouldn't support a klan leader deserved to be called out as racist and misogynistic.

i also presume that as a new york democratic politician, AOC knows has had more interaction with jay jacobs than i have, and so is probably in a better position to know if this was an honest if dreadful mistake from an otherwise earnest ally of women and minorities, or if it's part of a larger pattern.

my guess is that AOC knows damn well exactly what she's talking about.

[qazplm135]

15. when you make a comparison

you're, ya know, making a comparison.

[stopdiggin]

109. except when 'contrast' is the point for comparison

Eh?

[qazplm135]

139. Contrast?

What would be the point of not voting for her if he's contrasting her against Duke?

The only reason to make the comparison is by way of example.

[stopdiggin]

144. Um? It's an endorsement? Not a vote?

Did you read any of this? The part where he says this is an extreme - for illustration? A contrasting example?

The man is saying (poorly in some minds) - that the precept that he must endorse anyone running on a Democratic ticket - is a fallacy. And here's a (far fetched) example of why .... Other people disagree with that stance. And I'm having a hard time figuring out what your thoughts are on the matter.

[qazplm135]

156. Lol

The DNC chair not endorsing the Dem candidate because he wouldn't, for example, endorse David Duke therefore his endorsement isn't automatic is pretty clearly saying there's a linkage between the two not a contrast.

I'm not endorsing her because she's not like Duke is gaslighting of the most laughingly silly kind and yeah after making that comparison I'm guessing he's not voting either lol

Take this nonsense to someone who will buy it.

[stopdiggin]

159. Yeah. Have to say I still find what you're putting out there

very hard to follow (or dope out). Probably best to just disengage.

[qazplm135]

162. Sure

You do lol

[48656c6c6f20]

18. That's right

Support democrats no matter what! It's not like a couple of Joe's would come in and subvert the democratic agenda right? I mean we got a good Joe as president and I can't think of any bad Joe's that would be beholden to another party right

[crimycarny]

40. That's what drives me crazy

To support a Democrat no matter what is the exact opposite of what I want our party to be.

I would prefer to hear Jay Jacobs give his practical reasons for not supporting a candidate versus making stupid analogies. But I also don't believe it's constructive to inflame his remarks and make this whole thing a spectacle.

So Jay Jacobs was an ass and idiot for not having the guts to give his reasons for not supporting India Walton versus the write-in candidate, and instead relying on an analogy that got him in hot water. But -- IMO -- AOC inflaming it and the whole shit show that's going on is why Dems continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

[AZProgressive]

44. The write-in candidate

Is fear mongering big time when it comes to India Walton bringing up Socialism and Democracy (ignoring she is a Democratic Socialist) and calling her a radical Socialist. I think that is very divisive considering we have Democratic Socialists in our party and they are definitely not scary and are much better than Republicans.

In a primary in a Democratic city the loser of the primary typically congratulates the winner and helps them in a city where Republicans aren’t a threat.

[unblock]

21. of all the crap AOC gets on this site, this is a terrible choice of moments to bash her.

she's pushing back on someone whose basic job is to support new york democratic candidates and who made a statement that had, at best, unfortunate racist and misogynistic overtones.

whatever your reasons are for not being a superfan of AOC, i think this is a very ill-advised moment to object to another woman/minority politician.


his refusal to back her is unfortunate enough, but his explanation was dreadful. yes, a lawyerly parsing of his words was simply that he was using duke as a justification for his right to not support absolutely everyone, but that is a horrible explanation for why he was then choosing not to back this particular democratic candidate.


hey, i didn't vote for donnie. i mean, i sure as hell wouldn't have voted for hitler if he somehow came back to life and ran for u.s. president.

now, technically, i'm not equating donnie with hitler, but it certainly does give that impression, doesn't it.

he basically said i'll support any democrat unless they're as horrible as david duke, so i'm not supporting india walton.

it was a terrible statement and he fully deserves a ton of crap from other new york politicians like AOC.

[H2O Man]

28. +1

[crimycarny]

42. Agree it was a terrible analogy

And he should have given concrete reasons for why he didn't want to endorse India Walton. But inflaming this to the extent it is now isn't helpful and you can see MANY Liberals defending Jay Jacobs on this because they felt AOC's claims he was making the comparison was a bridge too far. So now we've got Dems fighting among Dems, even getting Schumer involved at a time we need to focus on Voting Rights act, Build Back Better.

So Jay Jacobs can be wrong in making his analogy, and AOC can be wrong in inflaming the whole thing.

Just tired of the constant drama.

[questionseverything]

83. The only drama is that Democratic Party chair won't support the primary winner

And was insulting about it


Listen if the party hot shots just want to name the nominee, don’t bother having a primary

[crimycarny]

94. So if the Dem Party chair doesn't endorse they are racist and misogynists?

There are many high-ranking NY Dems that aren't endorsing India Walton (see reply #90).

Is Jay Jacobs a racist and misogynist as AOC claims? Those are pretty inflammatory and heavy claims to make. Fighting against discrimination based on racism, gender, & sexual orientation absolutely fundamental to the Democratic platform. So if you are going to accuse a fellow Democrat of abusing the very foundation of what the Democratic party stands for, you'd better be d*mm sure you are right.

[H2O Man]

58. But couldn't this be

the camel that drank through straws coming back? Or something? I mean, is it possible for AOC's political career to survive this OP? Or would that suggest some of us are almost as uncomfortable with an outspoken, non-white, female leader as those who invaded on January 6 are?

[unblock]

85. it's amazing how much crap some people on this site give AOC

she's one of our best advocates. she just seems so genuine, an actual human being who really cares about people trying to make the case for a better america, a better government, one that actually serves the needs of real people. all of us, not just the rich, not just the businesses.

she cuts through the b.s. and the usual political jargon and conventions and really tells it like it is. like how much of a tax cut or spending proposal will actually wind up in the hands of her constituents.

i get that many people here are pragmatists and want to get the best result possible and not hold out for the best possible result. fair enough, but the pragmatists need to recognize that people like AOC, who plant a more distant flag, help the entire negotiating process by showing us the path and pulling us in the right direction.

yes, we're not going to get to the kind of ideal AOC talks about for a long time, but we're never going to get there if we don't have people like her pointing the way.


if all we have are pragmatists and people like manchin and sinema, we'll compromise ourselves into some very weak sauce that won't inspire the kind of turnout we need to keep the fascists from ruining everything. we need people like AOC to keep our compromises reasonable.

[AZProgressive]

114. +1000

[crimycarny]

88. Oh puhleeze--how dare you.

Leave out the crap about "being uncomfortable with an outspoken, non-white, female leader". This has zip to do with AOC's race, color, outspokenness.

And don't you DARE try to put me in the same boat as January 6th insurrectionists.

This is why we can't have civil conversations on DU. Calling others racists and misogynists when they simply have a differing opinion. Shame on you.

[betsuni]

99. It's shameful.

Part of the "anti-establishment" script. My favorite was when people who preferred Shontel Brown over Nina Turner were accused of only disliking Turner because she's "a strong woman of color." Evidently the "Yer racist and sexist" insult is so automatic that those using it didn't stop to think how ridiculous it was, but even when it was pointed out that both candidates were women of color, doesn't make a dent.

[crimycarny]

117. It's divisive and unnecessary

I make the assumption that everyone on the DU forum has fought, and will continue to fight, hard against any form of discrimination or oppression based on race, gender, or sexual identity. So to accuse anyone on a DU forum of being racist or sexist based on a difference of opinion is abhorrent.

[sheshe2]

130. Bingo.

Nina also stated that:

It’s official! Sen. Nina Turner is running for Congress. She’s running for the seat vacated by Rep. Marcia Fudge, who Joe Biden has chosen as secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The People’s Party isn’t on the ballot in Ohio yet so she will have to run as a Democrat, but we can’t think of anyone better to win that seat and bring a friend of the People’s Party to Congress.

https://peoplesparty.org/nina-turner-congress/

She isn't even a Democrat and campaigned for Jill Stein.

Why would others, AOC and Sanders, endorse her?

[AZProgressive]

135. She had a very short association with the People's Party

But left long before they are the toxic brand they are now. They wanted AOC and others to not vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker but they did anyway and they launched a hate campaign against the squad which Nina wasn’t apart of and pushed back against it. After Nina Turner lost People’s Party blamed her loss on not attending their M4M4ALL rallies as to why she lost. Now they are pushing Ivermectin.

Nina Turner never should have been apart of that but she left after a very short time. Jill Stein is another story but AOC was elected after 2016. AOC is their most hated politician.

As far as that endorsement the People’s Party doesn’t have any candidates.

[sheshe2]

141. Me thinks you are confusing all their partys.

https://peoplesparty.org/the-peoples-convention/

Nina Turner & Dr. Cornel West Keynote People’s Convention

“Four years from now, at the People’s Convention of 2024, when The People’s Party stands poised to win Congress and the White House, we will look back and celebrate this gathering as the moment that our nation turned the page on the Second Gilded Age. The moment that we took fate into our own hands. The moment that we gave rise to a new progressive era,” said Nick Brana, national coordinator with the Movement for a People’s Party. Brana was the national political outreach coordinator with Bernie 2016 and a founding staffer and former electoral manager with Our Revolution.

Perhaps confusing them with Justice Democrats that morphed into Brand New Congress. Lots of them out there. All still functioning.

[AZProgressive]

142. I know the People's Party has been a toxic brand since December 2019

I think Nina Turner & Cornell West attended that thing before December 2019 and haven’t been associated with them since.

Nina Turner was a Justice Democrat during the primary and is still with them and had their reasources and organization backing her but the people’s party hate Nina & AOC at this point.

[unblock]

121. woah -- i suggest you take a breather and re-evaluate

surely you can see that bringing up the kkk when talking about a black candidate is... problematic at best?

i mean, he could have used any republican in his hypothetical, in fact he could have said "some conservative republican" without even offering a specific name. but no, he had to use the grand wizard of the ku klux klan as part of his justification for not supporting a black woman. problematic, no?

surely you can see that failing to supply a good reason for not supporting a black woman democratic candidate, given his job, was, again, problematic at best?


i mean, even if he hadn't mentioned the kkk, his answer was nothing more than "because i don't have to". minorities get that kind of crap all the time and they know damn well that people give reasonable answers when they have reasonable answers to give. they give evasive b.s. when they don't. AOC, and I are on firm ground to think there's something... problematic here.


so, now, what about AOC's response is out of line here? calling out apparent bigotry and sexism when it certainly appears that there's bigotry and sexism there to be called out? and surely you can see that AOC, as an outspoken woman/minority is going to be quite motivated to speak out against such things?

how can it have nothing to do with it?

hypothetically, let's say senator schumer said what AOC said. in his own words, but called the original statement out as racist and misogynistic and called for his resignation.

would you really have objected to that?

really?


i will give you that bringing the 1/6 insurrectionists into it wasn't helpful, but i agree with everything else h2oman posted.

[Celerity]

23. Schumer calls New York State Democratic Chair's hypothetical scenario about David Duke when

referencing India Walton "outrageous and beyond absurd"

https://www.businessinsider.com/schumer-new-york-democratic-chair-india-walton-david-duke-2021-10

Link to tweet

[Arazi]

25. This is really a stretch in constructing a rationale for disliking her

Just admit you don't like her.

The Dem party chair absolutely made a shit comparison. We can all see it

[crimycarny]

32. so basically we have to be 100% on board, we can't be more discriminate

There are things I like very much about AOC, and there are things I don't like. AOC has a tendency to bash other Democrats with a pinch of unnecessary hyperbole. She sits in a very safe district so it's a tad bit easier for her to be bold in her criticisms.

Overall I like AOC but this particular side of her I haven't liked in her from the beginning.

[AZProgressive]

35. She endorsed India Walton who won the Democratic Primary in this case

It is Jay Jacobs who refused to back the Democratic Primary winner.

I was afraid of this kind of thing in case Bernie Sanders won the primary with someone like Bloomberg probably running in the general election.

[Arazi]

39. Justified criticism is fine. Don't even need to be a "fan" let alone a "superfan"

But the very vocal element who criticizes this woman for bullshit reasons like this are trying to manufacture outrage against her.

This is manufactured outrage against her and it's tiresome seeing it over and over and over

[crimycarny]

50. Manufactured rage?

Manufactured rage would be more along the lines of me using hyperbolic terms like "socialist", "radical feminist"...etc. Versus describing what I didn't like about what AOC did without personally maligning her.

AOC called Jay Jacobs racist, misogynistic, and a member of the old boys club. So that's ok but what Jay Jacobs said was not???

I don't like the hyperbole that AOC uses at times.

[SunImp]

55. has a tendency to bash other Democrats with a pinch of unnecessary hyperbole.

Sounds just like what her haters do too. Not saying you're like that. She does need to tone it down a bit, but so do her adamant haters who come into AOC/Squad threads with their obnoxiousness.

[crimycarny]

105. Her strength is what can be polarizing

I cherish watching AOC take down a GOP opponent. She is so smart, so articulate, informed, and very passionate. Definitely a bright and rising star. I truly do like AOC overall, but (IMO) this is a perfect instance of when her passion can be an overstep.

I've been reflecting on this a lot. Wondering why it got me so annoyed. Then I finally got to the root of why this bothered me so much. It wasn't AOC calling out Jay Jacobs for his tweet, which was pretty stupid and easily taken the wrong way. It was her taking it even further and calling him a racist and misogynist. That, to me, was a bridge too far. You don't throw those terms lightly unless the person you are accusing of being a racist and misogynist IS a racist and misogynist and has a long history of it.

India Walton accepted Jay Jacobs's apology with a lot of class: “I’ve not always said the right thing at the right time, so I extend a lot of grace to Mr. Jacobs.” Hopefully Jacob's apology and Walton's classy acceptance of his apology will calm the waters.

[AZProgressive]

29. The David Duke comparison also drew a rebuke from Schumer

Jay Jacobs was wrong for that analogy.

[crimycarny]

34. But what was his intent?

I heard he apologized later for the analogy he used and clarified it was not what he meant.

[AZProgressive]

37. His intent is he doesn't want to endorse the winner of the Democratic Primary

[crimycarny]

61. So he's a racist and msyognist?

Cause that's what AOC states he is. Is that necessary? Or can we just say he's an ass for not endorsing the winner of the Democratic primary and he needs to state his reasons why versus some lame-ass analogy?

Labeling him a racist, misogynist, and demanding he resign seems a bit over the top unless there is a long history of this sort of behavior.

[AZProgressive]

67. She is in the state of New York

She has a right to her opinion when it comes to her confidence in the party boss or whoever he is.

Jamaal Bowman also spoke out.

'Resign or Be Removed': Outrage After Top NY Dem Compares Buffalo's India Walton to David Duke

"This is the malignant narcissism of far too many white men," said Congressman Jamaal Bowman.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/10/19/resign-or-be-removed-outrage-after-top-ny-dem-compares-buffalos-india-walton-david?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1634704928

AOC is far from the only one to be critical of Jacobs but only AOC is being singled out for it and threads like this bring out the usual suspects who will jump at any opportunity to be critical of her. I think running a write-in campaign against the Democratic nominee is a very divisive thing to do and refusing to not back the nominee is making this a very divisive election for all sides.

[crimycarny]

84. Of course she has a right to her opinion--who said she didn't?

Someone having their right to an opinion doesn't mean others aren't capable of disagreeing with that opinion.

I have admired a lot of what AOC does and have also been critical of certain things she has done. Just like I have with many of our Democratic representatives. I don't "jump at any opportunity to be critical of her"...but in this case I am being critical of her.

So is the malignant narcissism of a white man? Does Jay Jacobs have a history of being a misogynist? Of being a racist? If not, why use those terms which are their own type of dog whistle.

I honestly don't know jack about Jay Jacobs so I don't know if he has a history of being a racist and a misogynist. If he doesn't, then using those terms to define him is as despicable as what others are claiming he meant when making his analogy.

[AZProgressive]

112. These are New York Democrats pushing back

Who know him a lot better than me and I trust their judgment. I’m not going to throw them under the bus over this.

[Celerity]

115. I would call it selective outrage and also selective usage of the term 'divisive'.

If the roles were reversed and Walton had lost the primary, then attempted to run on a 3rd party ticket (stopped by the courts, which did happen to Brown) and THEN, when all else failed, she ran as a write-in, with full support form many Rethugs (which Brown is getting) the howls of rage would be deafening from certain quarters.

But because the sore loser is someone they support, it is all okay.

[sheshe2]

143. Seems Schumer hasn't either.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, the most powerful New Yorker serving in Washington, has refused to commit to endorsing either Walton or Brown, ignoring the question when pressed by reporters.

https://buffalonews.com/opinion/editorial/the-editorial-board-democrats-hesitation-over-walton-mirrors-national-debate-on-extremism/article_1d47d6b8-31ce-11ec-97e4-ef6b47a8fedc.html

[Hortensis]

57. If people had one standard for everyone, forcing honesty on themselves,

and required honestly and integrity of candidates, forcing honesty on them,... Well, I guess wishes would be horses and we'd all take a ride.

Not that each of us shouldn't do exactly that anyway. THAT is doable. And when we don't, we're what we claim to despise in others. Because there really is only one standard for us all, whether we admit it or not.

[femmedem]

60. I like AOC quite a bit, still do, but I'm not with her on this.

He was using a hypothetical example, the worst of the worst, to show that no one is obligated to endorse the primary winner. But that doesn't mean he was in any way comparing her to David Duke.

That said, it may not be a requirement to endorse the Democrat who wins the primary, but it is certainly expected. In my little city, when a new-to-our-municipality Democrat unexpectedly beat the Democratic Town Committee-endorsed mayoral candidate in the primary, the DTC chair immediately shook his hand and offered his support.

So I can see AOC's and Schumer's gripe. I wouldn't call on him to resign over using David Duke as a hypothetical, but I might call on him to resign for not endorsing the Democratatic primary winner.

[stopdiggin]

122. precisely

the point of the OP is not the endorsement, or lack thereof. On that, 'fire away!' It's the mischaracterization and hyperbole - the faux outrage - over what the statement actually said.
---- ----

[Skittles]

64. she needs to learn to pick her battles

yes indeed

[aocommunalpunch]

65. Dude could have picked ANY comparison, but he chooses the Grand Wizard?

Just rolled off his tongue, but he's being maligned? LMAOGTFOH.

[Mariana]

72. But he wasn't comparing her to David Duke, oh no!

What a load of bullshit those excusing this are peddling.

[Celerity]

86. I just hate when I am struggling for an apt analogy and David Duke just springs from my lips.

[Politicub]

66. Jacobs intentionally used a klansman in his analogy about why he didn't

support an African-American woman. People are right to be outraged about that.

There is no place for him in Democratic Party leadership at any level, imho. He needs to resign.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

[Jedi Guy]

81. I'm not a fan of AOC, personally, for a number of reasons.

Many of those have been well picked-over here on DU. I'm not fond of her willingness to go after other Democrats, as in this case. I lost a lot of respect for her when Anderson Cooper brought up her "4 Pinocchio award" regarding military spending, and her response to that was basically that it was more important to be "morally right" than "factually correct." In other words, who cares if my facts are wrong as long as my heart's in the right place. I don't see how that's much different from "alternative facts."

[sheshe2]

87. Wonder where all the outrage was...

Wonder where all the outrage was when Nina Turner, a candidate for Ohio's Congressional seat, said:

Nina Turner, assessing the choice of Biden against President Donald Trump in the November presidential election, told The Atlantic: “It’s like saying to somebody, ‘You have a bowl of shit in front of you, and all you’ve got to do is eat half of it instead of the whole thing.’ It’s still shit.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nina-turner-joe-biden_n_5f200c04c5b638cfec49ecd5

We are talking about endorsments here? Well some high profile people not only endorsed her, they campaigned for her. Biden was the DEMOCRATIC nominee and some progressives endorsed her comments when they endorsed her. Nina Turner never walked back her statement or apologized. She also lost hugely to another black woman by the name of Shontel Brown.

Perhaps they are the ones that should step down.

[questionseverything]

92. At least you are honest that this is about Nina Turner being hated

That it’s ok for a Democratic Party chair to dis the democratic primary winner if nina supported that winner

[sheshe2]

95. What?

questionseverything

92. At least you are honest that this is about Nina Turner being hated

That it’s ok for a Democratic Party chair to dis the democratic primary winner if nina supported that winner

What are you talking about?

[lapucelle]

90. Jay Jacobs apologized, and India Walton accepted the apology.

Jay Jacobs is only one of several prominent NY Democrats who have not endorsed India Walton, a democratic socialist who is running on a platform that includes reallocating $7,000,000 from the police budget to mental health and homeless welfare calls and reducing the number of police on the streets (by 100) through attrition.

Ms. Walton will be the only candidate on the ballot on election day.

Among the Democrats who have not endorsed her are:
- Gov. Kathy Hochul
- Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin
- Attorney General Letitia James
- State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli
- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer
- U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
- Democratic State Party Chair Jay Jacobs
- Assembly Majority Leader Crystal Peoples-Stokes

Even outgoing mayor Bill De Blasio is sitting on the sidelines.

Lessons were learned in the 2020 midterms.

[crimycarny]

91. Thank you

Thank you for the additional information on this as it gives a more a much more balanced view of the situation.

[betsuni]

93. +1

[sheshe2]

110. thank you 111

[Bettie]

123. But, I'm guessing he's the only one who suggested she is

similar, in his mind, to David Duke.

[lapucelle]

125. Actually, no one suggested that. N/T

[Bettie]

126. His comment put her and David Duke in the same

"Ugh, why would I endorse someone so terrible" category, so yes, he did suggest just that.

[lapucelle]

129. No it didn't. As a matter of fact, Jacobs explicitly said that she is not in the same catagory.

A reporter asked him what sort of precedent it sets if top Democrats do not endorse a Democratic candidate who won a primary. Jacobs answered that there was no requirement to endorse. He used a David Duke scenario (which he called "very different" ) to illustrate the point. He also added that "India Walton is not in the same category".

Jay Jacobs drew the media fire away from the all the top NY Democrats who have not endorsed Walton. No one wants a replay of 2020.

[Bettie]

140. After he got called on it

so, whatever, sure, he wasn't trying to denigrate her. He was just being friendly and kind...SMH.

[lapucelle]

148. Jacobs didn't say Walton is not in same category "after he was called on it".

It was an explicit part of his original statement. Jacobs made it clear in real time.

“Let's take a scenario, very different, where David Duke, you remember him, the grand wizard of the KKK, he moves to New York, he becomes a Democrat, he runs for mayor in the city of Rochester, which is a low primary turnout and he wins the Democratic line. I have to endorse David Duke? I don't think so,” Jacobs said. “Now, of course, India Walton is not in the same category, but it just leads you to that question, is it a must?

It's not a must. It’s something you choose to do. That's why it's an endorsement. Otherwise, they call it something else, like a requirement.”

Jay Jacobs made his statement to push back on reporters' "concerns" about top NY Democrats' reluctance to endorse a candidate who is a socialist and whose platform on policing is easily framed as a "defund the police" plan.

Who does it serve when the press gins up "outrage" based on decontextualized snippets of long statements and extended analogies?

Cui bono?

[Kaleva]

96. When talking about a black candidate, using Duke as an analogy wasn't the wisest move.

[crimycarny]

98. Agree

But calling that person a "racist and misogynist" on Twitter to your 12.7 million followers isn't necessarily the best move either.

If Democrats are going to throw those terms around when calling out other Democrats, they'd better be d*mm sure they are correct.

[Kaleva]

100. And I agree with you.

Jay Jacobs shouldn't have said what he said, he could have used a better analogy, but AOC blew it out of proportion.

[sheshe2]

113. He shouldn't have and yes she did.

[gulliver]

102. The tweet by 1010 Wins contains a "false body language" statement, imo.

Last edited Wed Oct 20, 2021, 09:09 PM - Edit history (2)

It looks to me like the two juxtaposed (on edit: was spliced, which is incorrect) pictures were probably taken at different time instances and locations. I don't think that's kosher, although it happens constantly in the media.

The two facial expressions can be perceived as body language conversation. However, it's a conversation that probably never took place. If so, I think it's roughly the body language and emotional layer equivalent of making up a quote.

[Celerity]

106. there was no splicing

They are two clearly distinct pictures with no attempt to try and 'join' them together to create one picture.

The website proves this to be true.

https://www.audacy.com/1010wins/news/state/chair-of-ny-democrats-jay-jacobs-faces-calls-to-resign-over-kkk-remark


Buffalo mayoral candidate India Walton (left) and New York State Democratic Committee chair Jay Jacobs (right). Photo credit Tina MacIntyre-Yee /Rochester Democrat and Chronicle/USA TODAY NETWORK/New York Democrats

[gulliver]

118. True, I probably should have used the term juxtaposed.

Correcting it. My point is that the images should not even be shown together if it produces a body language conversational effect. Why not show two smiling photos facing forward? Or two serious photos from lecterns?

[Celerity]

119. fair enough, and I see your point about the body language

[gulliver]

120. cool

[Bettie]

124. The pictures are probably their standard

"head shots".

[Behind the Aegis]

111. Facinating.

Interesting arguments....interesting, indeed.

[Scruffy1]

127. Fuck this shit.

If i get banned so be it. I've been a member for over ten years and it's my favorite reading material but you can't logically conflate this shit. the reason I don't post a lot is because I don't want to get into arguments or piss people off. yeah I read his half ass comments yesterday but to David Duke and India Walton together in one quote is beyond the pale. As far as I know she has never claimed black people are superior. He can go fuck himself with a corncob.

[Celerity]

131. +1

[crimycarny]

137. Have you looked up his bio

Or done any research at all on the guy? Do you know that he apologized and India Walton graciously accepted?

His bio:

https://www.nydems.org/about/leadership

[ecstatic]

132. Jacobs was inappropriate.

There was no need to bring up David Duke in the same sentence as her. I'm not familiar with Jacobs, but based on the tweet information provided, he appears to be racist, sexist or both. That's just my opinion, of course.

Regarding AOC, I am cautiously optimistic about what her legacy will be. She's still in the learning phase and has made some mistakes, but I think she's on the right track.

[crimycarny]

134. I looked up his Bio

(Edited to remove sarcasm--just annoyed with snap judgments based on a single tweet)

Instead of basing my opinion of Jay Jacob's on a tweet, I looked up his bio. Under his leadership, Nassua county elected the first ever female County Executive in Nassau County's history, the first ever Iranian-American NY State Senator and the first ever Indian-American NY State Center.

Under his leadership, he raised more money and elected more Democrats than ever before. Changed Nassau Country to Democratic after 100 years of being a bastion of Republican".

He is the founder of SCOPE (Summer Camp Opportunities Promote Education), a program that sends inner city children to not-for-profit camps. Jay founded and currently serves as Chairman of Project Heal the Children, an ACA program that provides free summer camp experiences for the children of victims of the 9/11 tragedy.

Doesn't sound to me like someone who has a history of racism or sexism. I'll take a solid history of fighting for minorites, women, and progressive causes over a single tweet any day.

https://www.nydems.org/about/leadership

[ecstatic]

136. Thank you for providing more info on Jacobs

because I was not interested enough to look. However, I still think it was inappropriate to mention David Duke's name while mansplaining why he didn't support the democratic nominee (who happens to be a black woman). If he doesn't want people who don't know him to make assumptions about his character, he should choose his words more carefully going forward.

[crimycarny]

138. Agree but do we really want to ask a guy like this to resign?

Does an inappropriate tweet that he apologized for (and which India Walton accepted very graciously) rise to the level of asking a guy with his track record to resign?

I don't think so. Yes, he should choose his words more carefully and I think you can bet he will. But I also think the hyperbolic accusations of "Racist!" "Misogynist!" are inappropriate too. You can call him on the carpet without going to that extreme.

[ecstatic]

145. Fair enough. nt

[lapucelle]

149. I volunteer out of the Nassau county DNC office and have worked under Jacobs' leadership

on many campaigns, from presidential elections to smaller local races ... including Laura Curran's. (We are working to re-elect her right now).

Jacobs is tireless in his efforts to elect and retain Democrats, he protects his delegation, and he's a very approachable guy for someone so high up. He probably thinks it's a net positive that the press is talking about his reticence to endorse India Walton rather than Kathy Hochul's, Tish James's or Chuch Schumer's reluctance.

[crimycarny]

158. Thank you for that insight

From his bio he seems like a pretty hard-working Democrat who has not only helped get many Democrats elected but particularly Democratic women and Democratic people of color.

The whole sledgehammer approach over a badly worded tweet is what the phrase "cut of your nose to spite your face" was meant for. It's the Achilles heel of the Democratic party in that we often rush to judgment on our own party members (Al Franken is one).

[Nixie]

150. You explained yourself very well here, and I agree

about her unnecessary contortions.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

152. Seems to me that this is a case of a RW Democrat attacking a progressive Democrat by

using a really ignorant GOP like fear mongering tactic to paint India Walton as a left wing extremist, by comparing her to a RW extremist like David Duke.

Cuz OMG! I can't support her because she's a pinko liberal commonist left wing extremist, as far to the left as David Duke is to the right!!11!!111

The racist/misogynist element of Jacobs' unfortunate hypothetical scenario/analogy is a product of his institutionalized racist misogynist old boy type of lack of self awareness with regard to his inherent racism and misogyny.

Jacobs received instant backlash for his comments with many elected officials calling on Jacobs to resign or apologize.

Democratic State Senator Alessandra Biaggi said on Twitter, “Comparing the endorsement of India Walton to endorsing David Duke of the KKK is outrageously racist. You need to resign - today.”

Schumer released a statement saying, “The statement was totally unacceptable and the analogy used was outrageous and beyond absurd.”

State Attorney General Letitia James also condemned this analogy and said on Twitter, “I fundamentally reject the likening of India Walton, an inspiring Black woman committed to public service, to David Duke, one of the most prolific racists of our time. There can be no place for such rhetoric in New York.”

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2021/10/19/ny-democratic-chair-jay-jacobs-under-fire-for-david-dukes-analogy

[lapucelle]

153. Who are the "many elected officials" calling on Jacobs to resign?

They don't include:

- Gov. Kathy Hochul
- Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin
- Attorney General Letitia James
- State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli
- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer
- U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
- Assembly Majority Leader Crystal Peoples-Stokes
- Mayor Bill de Blasio

or India Walton herself.

There are dozens upon dozens of elected Democratic officials in NY. Who exactly are the "many" calling on Jacobs to resign?

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

154. AOC, Rep. Mondaire Jones, Rep. Jamaal Bowman, and

and state Sen. Alessandra Biaggi are 4 that I am aware of.

[lapucelle]

155. Four out of all the elected Democratic officials in NY is barely a handful.

And all four are in safe Democratic seats in NYC.

I wonder why the news source characterized four elected officials from safe seats in NYC as “many elected officials”.

[roody]

157. AOC is correct on this.

Not a superfan either.

[anamnua]

161. Personally I think

AOC, whom I generally respect and admire, seriously diminished herself with her attack on the iconic 19th century humanitarian, Fr. Damien of Molokai.