Most voters stayed home for stunning Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez win

[sheshe2]

Here’s what you get when you hold primary elections in June: A tiny percentage of party voters determine the congressional candidates.

Even in the most competitive races Tuesday, more than 80 percent of eligible voters stayed home.

In the race that caused an earthquake in the Democratic Party, 28-year-old newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez upset longtime Rep. Joe Crowley, 57 percent to 42 percent.

But only about 13 percent of registered Democrats turned out to vote in
the 14th Congressional District that takes in parts of Queens and the Bronx, according to a preliminary city Board of Elections tally.



More https://nypost.com/2018/06/28/most-voters-stayed-home-for-stunning-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-win/

It wasn't a landslide and Crowley's name is on a ballot.

Gotta wonder if she will upset people by campaigning everywhere but her district. She has not been there since her win. She seems to think she has a lock with 13%. I remember it said that Crowley had a lock as well. He was criticized for not campaigning hard enough in his own district when it was assumed HE had a lock.

[leftstreet]

1. So Crowley couldn't motivate his constituents

Ocasio-Cortez motivated enough people to win

[jalan48]

2. Well. I'm sure with all the support he will be giving her she shouldn't have any problem winning

the general election.

[George II]

165. Well, with her unfounded attacks AFTER she won....

....I wouldn't be surprised if he stayed out of it altogether.

She STILL hasn't apologized to him.

[sheshe2]

3. Perhaps not for the few that bothered to vote. Very small turn out.

Hope she can keep up the enthusiasm in her district via her campaigns all over the country. If I was part of a district where my rep ( yet to be elected rep) was absent, I would be pissed. Perhaps that is just me.

[Glamrock]

29. Not me

She's newsworthy and spreading the msg I voted for (if I lived on her district).

[sheshe2]

51. Newsworthy does not make the congressional congressperson.

Action IN CONGRESS DOES.

She is not an elected person yet. I will watch closely when she is.

[Glamrock]

53. No doubt.

Regardless, as I said, she'd be spreading the message I voted for. Good enough for me. I don't need her knocking on my door and telling me what her positions are if I can see her on tv making the point. Don't matter if she's in whatever state. Her msg is still reaching me.

[sheshe2]

60. ...

[xmas74]

158. Really?

Because if this was my district I would still expect stops. I would also, as a Dem, expect her to campaign closer to home. I am sure there are plenty of candidates in other parts of the state who could use her help whether local or state.

[George II]

213. Unfortunately her message didn't reach the voters in the midwest....

....or even Hawaii. Perhaps Tammy Duckworth was right.

[fleabiscuit]

178. I got that Deja Vu feeling all over again. nt

[sheshe2]

187. Hey flea.

Yep. I see it too.



For us....the rest of us.

Love ya~

[DemocracyMouse]

4. She may be reaching her own district through the national press

But she really should not take any chances and circle back! I'm not in her district, but if I were I'd vote for her. She's quick on her feet and has espoused intelligent and humane policies.

[stevenleser]

5. She's not quick on her feet. This is what WAPO has compiled

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210994189

You can't call someone who gets the facts wrong quick on their feet.

[KPN]

19. She's pretty sharp and speaks to people directly,

not to the pundits. And she is pretty darned good on her feet, especially for her age and experience. Maybe she doesn’t fit the traditional mold, but she certainly has many people excited — some for and some against her. That’s a pretty good measure of her potential in and of itself. Hard for me to grasp why any Democrat would dislike or strive to undermine her. Go figure.

[oberliner]

87. She will win and it won't be close

There is nobody seriously running against her. The Republican does not have a campaign website and has not filed the necessary paperwork to receive donations. He is a crank whose motivation for getting on the ballot was so he can talk about what he believes to be his unfair divorce court ruling. That's basically all he talks about when people try to interview him.

[George II]

164. No. If you were familiar with NY primaries this year, MOST constituents were expecting to vote....

...in the September primary, which is the big one in New York.

[Cha]

6. Thank you for the reminder, she.. That "earthquake"

has settled down since she and BS lost their high-profile races against Gretchen Whitmer, Sharice Davids,and William Lacy Clay that they campaigned for.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Incumbent-slayer from New York headed to St. Louis to help Lacy Clay's primary foe

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/incumbent-slayer-from-new-york-headed-to-st-louis-to/article_d3fcf203-1726-5c1d-b864-d8372edc3490.html

Lacy Clay, Gretchen Whitmer, and Sharice Davids!

[sheshe2]

62. They are the ones we have been waiting for Cha,

[Cha]

68. No Doubt.. Team Playas!

[sheshe2]

71. Playas!!!!

Lol!

Love it.

[xmas74]

160. If I lived an hour west of my current location

I could have proudly voted for Davids.

[Cha]

186. Close!

[xmas74]

237. Close enough that I plan to hear her speak.

I'm over the state line in Missouri. Renee Hoagensen has my support to take out Icky Vicky Hartzler.

[Cha]

239. Oh I would love that.. good

on you, xmas!

Link to tweet

[TheBlackAdder]

7. Well, she's the Dem candidate now. We should be supporting her, not tearing her down.

[sheshe2]

11. I do not see where I am tearing her down.

Do you or do you not believe she should be in her own district supporting them? She has not been there since her election in a primary. Do candidates, who have yet to win an election support their own districts? She is on national media giving interviews for her newly endorsed selections of candidates.

I met and voted for Elizabeth Warren. Granted she is now a Senator and not a primary winner for congress. I would be one pissed off voter if my rep was any place else that MA during an election...especially since they were yet to be elected.

[melman]

13. 'She has not been there since her election in a primary'

That'll be news to these people in Corona, Queens.

Link to tweet

[sheshe2]

20. Dated August 12th.

She finally went home after Hawaii. Michigan. Missouri. Kansas. Ohio. CA.

Hoo Yah!

[oberliner]

86. ⁦@AdyBarkan⁩ & I hosted a Labor Town Hall in a sweltering, packed church in the Bronx (Aug 7)

Details posted down thread.

[sheshe2]

169. Yeah.

I know. Already saw it. Thanks.

I had already read about Ady, in 2017 when he talked about Affordable Heathcare, ACA. Breaks my heart that he is dying and going to leave his young son fatherless.

[lapucelle]

162. She barnstormed three zip codes in her district in four days.

She's resting up now.

Link to tweet

[sheshe2]

173. And on the 7th week, she rested.

Hmm.

[lapucelle]

174. ...

[sheshe2]

192. ;)

[betsuni]

182. That is a really good one.

[sheshe2]

184. I couldn't help myself.

[George II]

234. Ah, Genesis 2:2

[KPN]

21. Exactly. I don't understand the hostility toward

AOC shown here. Can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something very disturbing to me about it. It makes no sense.

[sheshe2]

37. I never understood the hostility to Hillary and Obama.

Can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something very disturbing to me about it. It makes no sense.

Hmmm

[Cha]

56. Hmmm..

is right.

[sheshe2]

64. Cha!!!!

[mcar]

95. Hmmm

Some selective outrage, don't you think?

[sheshe2]

106. I do, mcar.

"Hold his feet to the fire"...I remember that well too.

[KPN]

107. Hostility to Obama? Yeah, there's been plenty

toward Hillary (if it can be called hostility).

[sheshe2]

172. Hill/Brick post. nt

Google it.

[G_j]

206. What-

about??

[Caliman73]

166. I think that the hostility is overblown, but the reason is that AOC has spent much of her time...

criticizing the Democratic party. She is the Democratic nominee so there should be support for her according to the TOS in DU, but I understand some of the displeasure with her when she is at very least, intimating at restructuring the Democratic Party.


I think that there should always be a healthy debate and that primaries are necessary to gauge where the party is. I do not like when candidates try to tear each other down and use slurs like, "the candidate of the 1%" on Democratic candidates as people from Our Revolution are want to do about Democratic incumbents.

AOC has focused on what she wants to try to do in congress, which is good, but she has gone on air sometimes and provided Republicans with ammunition to hit the Democratic candidates in areas where she was supporting another Democrat over the eventual winner of the primary.

All that being said, I still want her to win the GE over ANY Republican.

[KPN]

185. I guess I haven't heard her criticizing the Democratic Party

in any way that isn’t constructive and puts people first. She’s pretty much about restoring the party values that existed prior to Reagan. Granted, the party was white male centric then but we've made enormous strides since then in that regard. To me, boiled down to its essence she basically makes the case that we can do both and that we must do both. If that’s criticism, then it’s constructive criticism.

Frankly, I have a difficult time understanding the problem people have with her. I haven’t heard anything convincing to this point — nobody’s perfect, the good far outweighs the bad as far as I can see — which leads me to imagine it’s being taken as personal criticism by some.

[sheshe2]

197. Tammy Duckworth

Look it up.

[Hortensis]

230. Have you by chance heard Bernie Sanders criticize the

Democratic Party at critical points, echoing Republican claims of corruption, or noticed what the consequences of that have been? If you have, then you'll know what is alarming people about Ms. Ocasio. She is singing the same old songs as she was before and doesn't seem to have any regret or to have learned anything at all from that huge win for fascism and disaster for progressive government.

Can't speak for others, but I'd be glad to forego shame and bitter regret in her for indications that her part in this changed her into a far wiser, more responsible progressive. She's not too young, at least 3 years past adolescence into adult brain development. But where are they? She truly sounds as if she still has no idea of the danger our nation is in.

[KPN]

231. Again, it's about Bernie. The meme that we

give the GOP lines for attack is tiresome. They do that well enough on their own. Likewise, the offense at and objection to criticism is tiresome and self-defeating.

[Hortensis]

232. No, it's about HER. I don't like what she's saying.

You seemingly cannot imagine that anything these people do could lose elections that would lead to hundreds of thousands of people being imprisoned in detention camps in the desert until they can be deported. I do. The camps are already planned by the Republican administration and large numbers of the people to be held in them already identified.

I can also imagine an America under continued Republican government where decent (or worst case any) healthcare is only available to those who can pay for it out of their own pockets or who have it as an increasingly rare job benefit. Where the very means of a national healthcare system it are unconstitutional.

I can imagine an America where Social Security is "privatized," as the Republican leadership repeatedly promises to do, and dividends eaten away by fees and market fluctuations into nothing.

I can also imagine one where it becomes unsafe to chat honestly on social media like this and where sensible people learn to keep their eyes cast down when passing police.

Can she? She doesn't act like it.

[Hekate]

25. I don't think it's tearing her down to wonder at some of her behavior that is so untypical ...

...of a first time candidate who needs to woo her own district. She's riding a wave of celebrity all around the country with Bernie, cheered on by a lot of people who cannot vote for her even if they want to. We are being told by DUers who claim to be familiar with the district that her win in November is a slam-dunk, and I certainly hope so because we need that seat in the House.

[sheshe2]

76. Blue is never true, Hekate.

Nothing is a given. We lost Teddies seat in MA to Scott Brown. He was a Cosmopolitan nude centerfold. My state elected that asshole. No seat is ever secure.


I repeat. No seat is secure and Crowley was ridiculed for doing so now AOC is doing the same thing. ASSUMING.

[xmas74]

161. We lost our seat in 2010.

We had Ike Skelton for over 30 years and lost the seat to Vicky Hartzler, one of the absolute worst in Congress. We still can't get rid of her.

[sheshe2]

193. I understand your pain.

We finally got ours back and it was ugly. Brown did his Hiawatha thing.

[Hortensis]

228. Yes. With just a little care by the official, it can take

most of a generation for enough constituents to finally realize and object enough to bad representation to overcome the current incumbent advantage.

[KPN]

109. So it's just "wonder" then. Okay. Then why the statements

about she should stay in her district and shut up about/not endorse Dems running in primaries outside her district? Hmmmm.

[Hekate]

138. I have not participated that much in the discussions, one way or another. I have certainly not...

...said she should shut up with her endorsements.

I HAVE, however, seen many first-timers in my life. NONE have left their district right after winning a primary election in order to take an extended vacay, or campaign all over the country with a non-party member, or any such thing.

This young woman won the primary. That is all. Everything about her exists in potentia and is yet to be proven. Good luck to her.

[progressoid]

129. Not really that untypical of a first time candidate

My wife and I support two first time local candidates who do a scaled back version of what she's doing. They both have other full time jobs and obviously they don't have the media coverage she has, yet they often travel outside their districts and our state to help other candidates and causes. It's good for them and the other candidates.

My wife and I also volunteer to help out a state house candidate that we can't even vote for. Why would we do something like that? Because he's running against a regressive, right wing, asshole who we want out of the house!

[Retrograde]

8. It's more complicated than that

California has primaries in June, and has a much larger turnout.

New York has weird primary rules: to vote in a partisan primary, one has to have registered in that party usually more than a year in advance. That means that unless someone somehow foresaw the future, they may not have even been eligible to vote. Plus, New York has at least 2 separate primaries: one in June for Federal offices and one in September for state offices.

[sheshe2]

70. I have read about NY voting rules, thank you Retrograde.

However that does not explain why she is everywhere but her district, campaigning like an establishment member of the Democratic party. She is not yet an elected member of congress.

In baseball terms. You have to make it to first base before you make it home.

[R B Garr]

105. Yup! First things first. nt

[tonedevil]

121. I guess this means...

she won't be getting your vote.

[sheshe2]

208. It would be impossible for me to vote for her...

I will however be voting for Joe Kennedy in MA along with my Senators, Warren and Markey.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

9. It doesn't matter when you hold your primaries.

A lot of voters simply can't be bothered. Same problem with the off year elections. A lot of people only go to the polls once every four years, and then a lot of them apparently only vote for the President and don't vote any other race on the ballot.

[George II]

163. The big thing is how many primaries you hold in a particular state. NY had one in June and....

....the BIG one, that everyone was anticipating (Governor, etc.) is in September.

Turnout in June was about 11%, let's see what it is in September.

[melman]

10. Are you advocating a third party vote?

Because it kind of seems like that's what you're doing when you say - 'Crowley's name is on a ballot'

[R B Garr]

12. Crowley is a Democrat. Are you upset about Sanders

switching back to 3rd party (Independent)??

[sheshe2]

22. Boom!

I also answered below.

Great post! Crowley is a Democrat.

[Glamrock]

30. Not if he's running as an independent he isn't.

[sheshe2]

34. Yep.

The dawn is breaking and it's early morn.

[sheshe2]

72. BS.I NT

[Glamrock]

74. I'm not following you sister.

[sheshe2]

77. Bernie Sanders. Independent. nt

[Glamrock]

78. So are you saying we should support independents over Democrats?

Or not?

[sheshe2]

80. Crowley is a Democrat.

Period. Do not play with me.

[Glamrock]

81. I'm so not.

He lost the primary last I checked. That should mean he's running as an independent against the winner of the Democratic primary.

[sheshe2]

82. No.

5am here and I need to sleep. It is posted in this thread how he was put on a ballot as a Dem, look it up. I am to tired to find it for you.

[melman]

83. No

He's not on the ballot as a Democrat. He's on the ballot as the nominee for the Working Families Party.

How could the WFP put him on the ballot as a Democrat? They couldn't.

There's only one Democratic candidate: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[R B Garr]

102. He did not place himself on the ballot as an Independent.

Unlike Bernie, he has not switched parties back and forth.

Crowley has not switched parties. He is a Democrat.

[Glamrock]

84. Got it.

The votes of those that bothered to voted in the primary mean Jack if the party wants someone else. We are absolutely clear. The voter means Jack. And their vote means even less if the establishment isn't happy with the voters choice.

[disillusioned73]

97. Ding-Ding...

we have a winner ladies & gentleman..

What is happening to AOC is obvious to anyone paying attention... and the problem for those that think they control things.. is that more & more ppl are paying attention.. and we're not eating the sugar coated shit samich that has been served up in the past..

[R B Garr]

104. Crowley has been in the district for 20 years. He did not

switch parties. He is a Democrat. It was especially low voter turnout, so your concern over voters being cheated is amusingly ironic.

[MaryELease]

198. .

and he lost.

[R B Garr]

200. .

Welcome to DU!!

Yes, we support Democrats here, and Crowley is a Democrat. No qualifiers, either, like former or current Independent or anything like that.

[MaryELease]

212. So. .

So. .
Why are people attacking a young, strong Latina, who won the Democratic Primary, and you're advocating for 3rd party runs against Democrats by people who lost and refuse to accept the results? Do you want every incumbent Democrat who loses their primary to make a 3rd party run in the General and play spoiler?
Stop trying to play word semantics and justify this with mental gymnastics.

He lost. He's not going to be on the ballot in November as the Democratic nominee. He's on the ballot as the WPP nominee, so he can say he's a Democrat all he wants, as you try to keep insisting. If that's true, then he would concede and not accept the nomination to be on the November ballot, and actually support Democrats.

There are a number of easy ways he can easily have himself removed from the November ballot as the WPP nominee. It's as simple as registering outside his district to his DC address temporarily, which in NY state would automatically take him off the ballot, and then 30 days later or shortly before election day, register to vote in his NY district if he prefers to vote for the races in NY instead of DC.

By your argument, you're saying that if Sanders remained a registered Democrat after the 2016 Primary, but accepted the Green Party's nomination because they endorsed him as their candidate for the General, that was completely fine because he's still a registered Democrat?
Otherwise, you're implying that only certain people are "real" or "true" Democrats, and an arbitrary label selectively applies based on your and/or a small group of people who regularly post on here and clearly take umbridge with AOC, or certain other Democrats they feel aren't sufficiently loyal to their version of what and who the Democratic Party is and represents.

You can't have it both ways. Plenty of Democrats lose their bid to run for office as the Democratic nominee to various elected offices. That doesn't mean they cease being a Democrat. If they then run in the General as another Party's nominee, by definition they are putting themselves before the party and the will of the voters and seeking office not as a Democrat. Which is why many states prohibit this and have sore loser laws.

The entire premise of this thread is a joke. The implication is to attack the legitimacy of AOC by claiming that a low turnout justifies attacking and disqualifying her win.
No. The people in her district who cared enough to go and vote for a candidate of their choosing, and she won. To negate that win is to argue in favor of voiding the outcome and the will of the constituents who cared enough to participate in democracy and the electoral process. The rest is whataboutism that seeks to: One, claim that they know what that district really wants more so than the results; Two, disparage the actual Democratic nominee's win; Three, find any convoluted means to justify someone being a sore loser that lost in the Primary, and accept a 3rd party nomination for the General, because it fits their desired agenda or candidate of preference in spite of already losing.

Crowley sent a proxy to one of his Primary debates, because he couldn't be bothered to show up himself and engage with the members in the district he represents; and people have the gall to attack AOC for not talking to or making herself available to the public and her constituents. She's not even their elected official yet, but apparently can at least show up to the debates.
That's farcical!

Imagine if Hillary had Huma or Jake Sullivan show up in her place for one of the debates? Or, if Obama had Rahm stand in for him during one of the debates in 08 with Hillary. . .
Those are just 2 examples, and you can pick any others, and the underlying point remains.

You don't think that would send a very poor message and terrible optics to the people, both at the event & watching at home, who came out to see them make their case for asking for your vote?

End this nonsense and pedantic exercise of word parsing, logical incongruity, and spin that's nothing more than a ruse for a frequent & vocal small contingent drumming up discord. It's plain as day to see those who have an ax to grind, and seemingly a vested interest in making a concerted effort to steer the narrative, and care less about being honest brokers than desired outcomes- which isn't the same as desirable results.

I'm not implying that is you, but sifting through this thread and a regular reading of the threads and poster comments, it's not exactly difficult to spot the handful of people who astroturf, flood, and jump-in to steer the discussion and control the narrative.

I could support that more if it was based on principled convictions, and conducted in an honest and truthful manner. It's not hard to spot the same canned answer(s) reworded that are more mind-numbing platitudes, hollow talking points, or simplistic phraseology that sounds sweet, but actually devoid of any real substance. It's the junk food equivalent of herd mentality group-think.

However, when the facts aren't on their side they quickly seek to distort, manipulate, and peddle falsity to sow doubt, debase, and distract or detract to suit their own purposes. If you have to stand on misinformation and concocted disparaging attacks, then you've already lost the battle of ideas and policy, otherwise you would articulate them and let truth and the facts make the case to win the day.

Take care, and have a positive day!

[R B Garr]

216. Just the fact that you misrepresent what is happeing in her district tells me

enough not to take your post seriously. Welcome to DU Your comments sound very familiar, but unfortunately they are not even close to the reality that is happening. You are the one trying to push having it both ways.

You are pretending that Cortez is being victimized and you also are pretending that we haven't seen this whole entire scenario play out with Sanders switch from Independent to Democrat back to Independent again. That is really the gist of the discussion. The sheer hypocrisy of being told that Independents are really Democrats until an actual Democrat is on the ballot as an Independent in a twist of circumstances that are beyond his control is pure hypocrisy exposed. That is what is being discussed here in all manner of ways, including your ideations that Crowley should just disappear himself from the ballot in ways that the law in his state doesn't allow.

Welcome to DU, but your comment here truly makes me chuckle, I'm sorry, but I can't help it...
"I could support that more if it was based on principled convictions, and conducted in an honest and truthful manner. It's not hard to spot the same canned answer(s) reworded that are more mind-numbing platitudes, hollow talking points, or simplistic phraseology that sounds sweet, but actually devoid of any real substance. It's the junk food equivalent of herd mentality group-think."

Apologies since you are new here again, but I do find the above to be a kind of retro comment about the entire efforts of the Sanders' campaign to accept that an Independent is really a Democrat, but now we are to throw all that out the window in this twist of fate.

[MaryELease]

218. Sorry

You should re-read my post. He has a number of ways of getting off the ballot.

I don't particularly think it would matter.

As for the rest, if your only take away from my post is to see the word Sanders and be dismissive, then I guess that speaks to you, and I can't correct comprehension when it comes to the difference between an argument point and an example to illustrate.

[R B Garr]

219. LOL, no you are misrepresenting what the facts are of him getting

off the ballot.

Your whole "argument" is very familiar, that's why I didn't have to dissect point by point because they are all recycled. The hypocrisy about this whole Independent becoming Democrat, but not vice versa is being truly exposed.

[George II]

225. Joseph Crowley is the chairman of the Queens County Democratic Party, and he has been...

....since around 2006, more than a decade. If he were to re-register elsewhere he would have to give up that position.

He has also been on the ballot under the Working FAMILIES Party (not sure what "WPP" is) in the last three elections, this will be his fourth.

He's not going to disrupt his life to soothe any hurt egos. He shouldn't.

BTW, we still haven't seen an apology for the false accusation that he's "mounting a third party bid". As the loser of the primary, he's been a lot more gracious than the winner.

As far as his constituency is concerned, there still are manny people on both sides of the river who appreciate him.

[OrwellwasRight]

253. +1000

Thank you for calling these back-handed insults and questionings of her ability for what they are, BS. And welcome to DU.

[George II]

235. He's in today's DEMOCRATIC primary. He'll be on the November ballot as an Independent.

[ucrdem]

244. LOL, never mind.

[R B Garr]

33. lol, you are getting responses that voting for an Independent

is now very bad...Amazing!

[sheshe2]

35. This place is a hoot.

[R B Garr]

38. It is officially through the looking glass!

An Independent is a Democrat, unless the Democrat is an Independent. Wut??

[sheshe2]

44. Yup.

[Glamrock]

36. Right?

For a year it's been vote for the Democrat. The other isn't a Democrat. Now that the Democrat is aligned with the other, that high n mighty line is right out the window.

[R B Garr]

39. No, for years it has been that Independents are Democrats.

Until the Democrat is an Independent, then the Independent is not a Democrat.

[Glamrock]

42. You say tomato....

[R B Garr]

43. Crowley is a Democrat, so we're good.

[Glamrock]

45. No, he's running as an independent.

He was a Democrat. Then he lost. He may caucus with the Democrats if he wins, but as stated here since '16,he's not a Democrat.

[R B Garr]

46. He is a Democrat.

[Glamrock]

47. Really?

He's the Democratic nominee? I was under the impression that he lost his primary. Apparently I'm mistaken.

[R B Garr]

48. The umbrage over "Independents" now is hilarious.

He didn’t drop the party, but it seems okay anyway considering how fast Bernie went back to Independent.

[sheshe2]

50. Ooops

[Glamrock]

52. It's not umbrage.

It's playing by the rules of the "I vote for the democrat unconditionally" folks. Now that the Democrat of their choice lost, that rule goes right out the window. Those posts should have read, apparently, "I support the democrat that's not aligned with Bernie. And if she is, fuck her, I'm for the independant." It's complete and utter hypocrisy. The fact that some refuse to see the irony of their own words being used against them displays a purposeful obtuseness the likes of which haven't been seen since Mitch McConnell decried obstruction. All these posts that you are laughing at are using the words of forum members to make a point. Some are choosing to miss it completely.

[ucrdem]

54. Crowley's name is on the ballot as a Democrat, not as an independent. nt

[Glamrock]

61. How is that possible?

He lost the Democratic primary and filed on the Working Families line?

[ucrdem]

63. Basically it's a fluke.

Others can explain it better but the WF is a 3rd party that endorsed Crowley as a Democrat. In other words they didn't choose to field their own candidate.

[Glamrock]

65. Okay then.

If he's running as a Dem, may the best Dem win. I was wrong. No problem. Thanks for the info.

[ucrdem]

67. hey thanks

Have a great week!

[Glamrock]

69. You too man.

And thanks for setting me straight. I always support the Dem candidate. If Bernie hadn't run as a Dem, I wouldn't have voted for him. Period. Even though I wanted him to run for years prior. Im not gonna lie, if the party let's him run again on their ticket, I may support him again. But if he runs as an independent? Sorry brother, can't do it. Dig?

[melman]

73. It's not true

Crowley is on the ballot as the Working Families Party nominee. There's only one Democratic candidate: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Bettie]

246. So, you are hoping that the primary is negated

and the incumbent, running on a third party ticket, wins the race.

So, why even have primaries? Why not just have the "movers and shakers" (read: rich folk) make all the decisions for those poor, stupid voters? If we're just going to go ahead and say "if the incumbent loses, it's A-OK for him to run on a third party ticket" there is no point in having a primary or letting anyone run who isn't "approved" by someone higher up than a mere group of voters.

[ucrdem]

247. Hi Bettie, to answer your question: if Crowley is on the ballot, he'll be running as a Dem.

In fact he'll be in Congress as a Dem. The reason I don't see a problem with his remaining on the ticket is NOT to over-rule the primary, but as insurance in case Ocasio-Cortez drops out or changes her party affiliation. No I don't think she'll do either, and no I'm not hoping she does. I'm just hoping a Dem wins the seat.

[R B Garr]

55. Being for Independent Bernie by saying he's really a Democrat

and then saying Independents aren’t okay is completely inane hypocrisy. Crowley is a Democrat, so your concern is amusing.

[Glamrock]

58. Oh my God!

Reread your post. You are supporting an independent by saying he's a Democrat. And once again, it's forum members like you that have been saying independants aren't okay since '16. Now, you're supporting the independent, calling him a Democrat even though he lost the primary, and going against your own argument about independants not being okay. Once again, using your words to point out hypocricy isn't being a hypocrite.

[R B Garr]

99. Crowley is a Democrat. If you supported Bernie's multiple

strategic shifts, then you are the one being hypocritical. Crowley made no such strategic shift . He didn’t become a Democrat just to use our party’s resources, then switch back to Independent. He did not place himself on the ballot as an Independent. He is a Democrat.

Your desperation to try and play turnabout is amusing. I live in California, so I can’t support either one, but Crowley remains a Democrat. You should be relieved about that. Support Democrats. .

[Jim Lane]

112. It's your phony umbrage over "now" that's hilarious

You're implying an inconsistency on the part of Sanders supporters.

Bernie Sanders ran in the Democratic primaries. When he lost, he endorsed the Democratic nominee and campaigned for her. He did not appear on any general-election ballot as an opponent of the Democratic nominee. (Some people wrote him in but he can't prevent that.)

Crowley, on the other hand, IS on the general-election ballot as an opponent of the Democratic nominee.

Only a confirmed Bernie-basher would conflate these two situations.

[R B Garr]

113. Hilarious and desperate spin. Crowley did not place himself

on the ballot as an Independent, so the rest of your spin is just pure poppycock.

Crowley did not switch parties. Bernie switched parties multiple times to gain a strategic advantage. Crowley did not switch parties, and he did not enter his name as an Independent.

Either way, a Democrat will get that seat...great news.

[Jim Lane]

122. Let's look at the facts and see who's spinning.

Technically it's true that he didn't place himself on the ballot as an Independent. Some posts in this thread have overlooked a distinction: Someone who's on the ballot as an opponent of the Democratic nominee can be there as an independent, or can be there as the nominee of another party. Crowley is in the latter category.

But "Crowley did not place himself on the ballot" is absurd. He wanted to be the Working Families Party nominee on the general-election ballot.

You seem to be implying that the WFP leadership put him on the ballot against his vehement protests. Wrong. He could not be the WFP nominee unless he had accepted that nomination. In fact, the WFP leadership would now like to remove him from the ballot, but it can't do so without his cooperation, which he's refused to give.

And you repeat the tired old Bernie-bash canard about Bernie switching parties. It's a lie, it's been exposed here as a lie multiple times, yet the Bernie-bashers care more about their commitment to demonizing Bernie than they do about the facts. So I won't even bother to repeat the facts, or to give relevant links. You go right on believing what makes you happy.

The fact remains that Bernie Sanders was not on the 2016 general-election ballot as a candidate opposing the Democratic nominee. The same is true of his two previous Senate runs, and it will almost certainly be true this year, because the Democrats of Vermont persist in rejecting the DU Bernie-Basher Brigade's reiterated attacks on Bernie. Crowley, by contrast, will be on the 2018 general-election ballot as a candidate opposing the Democratic nominee (unless he relents and acts to remove his name). It's good that he himself is (so far) not campaigning, but he'll take some votes away from the Democratic nominee just based on name recognition, not to mention whatever benefit his candidacy may get because sleazeballs like Lieberman are pushing him.

[R B Garr]

127. It is not a lie that Bernie switched parties, lol.

Bernie switched back and forth for his own purposes. Crowley did not do that.

For anything you are spinning to be believable, then Crowley be a psychic who knew in advance that Ocasio would have benefitted from the low voter turnout and had sinister motives and snuck in his name on the ballot to deceive people. But that is not what happened, He is a Democrat. But this is the spin from the Democrat haters —a fitting response to you trying to malign people with “Bernie bashers.” Your post is down the rabbit hole time.

[LanternWaste]

229. "That is a simplification to which I do not subscribe..."

[oberliner]

90. Crowley is not running

He has said so multiple times and has endorsed Ocasio-Cortez.

[Glamrock]

92. He lied. He is running.

He found a way to get around the wishes of those that voted in the primary.

https://ballotpedia.org/New_York%27s_14th_Congressional_District_election,_2018

And amazingly, people here are okay with trumping the will of the voters.

[oberliner]

93. Crowley tweets: 'Still not running'

Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) chimed in with a reminder on Wednesday that he has no plans to mount a third-party bid for his House seat.

"Still not running," Crowley tweeted, in what appeared to be a response to former Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-Conn.) Wall Street Journal op-ed calling for voters to support the New York Democrat on the November ballot as the nominee of the Working Families Party.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/397682-crowley-tweets-still-not-running

Link to tweet

[ucrdem]

100. Keep in mind that he won that primary like AOC won hers.

That means that removing himself from the Nov. ballot isn't just a matter of changing his mind. It would take legal maneuvers that he has no reason to initiate. WF could do it but there too legal maneuvering would be needed and (this is from CA, NY might be different) it would affect their ballot access in future elections. And with smaller 3rd parties that's usually their only investment and if they lose it that's the end of the road.

[Jim Lane]

114. That's probably not true.

The Working Families Party in New York generally doesn't hold contested primaries. I think that, in one instance a few years ago, the WFP leadership even went to court to squelch a primary.

Under New York election law, a registered member of a party can run in that party's primary. Someone who's not a registered member can't run, except with the permission of the party leaders. In NY-14, I think the WFP leaders gave such permission to Crowley but to no one else. That's how they usually operate to get the nominee they want.

Was there a WFP primary, with both Crowley and Ocasio-Cortez on the ballot, in a fair and open competition, with Crowley winning? I'm pretty sure there was not. There may have been a "primary" with Crowley alone on the ballot, theoretically vulnerable to a write-in vote, or there may not even have been that much if Crowley was the only legally qualified candidate for the WFP nomination; I'm not sure of the details. I've seen one or two passing references to a WFP primary but I think those were by journalists who carelessly assumed that that had happened.

[ucrdem]

131. It's true. Here's a link. This is not a guessing game:

http://workingfamilies.org/new-york-congressional-candidates/

[Jim Lane]

136. I repeat, it's probably false, and your link proves absolutely nothing.

Your link lists the WFP nominees. It doesn't say how any of them succeeded in gaining that nomination.

The issue is not whether Crowley is the WFP nominee. Of course he is. That is, in fact, why some Democrats are upset.

I never said he wasn't the WFP nominee. What I actually said was that Crowley didn't become the WFP nominee by winning a contested primary. He was instead chosen by the party leaders, at a time when they assumed that he would win the Democratic primary.

[ucrdem]

141. Balletopedia.org considers him a Democrat running on a minor party line.

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_New_York,_2018


You can believe whatever you want to believe but the chances are good that it's probably false.

[R B Garr]

147. Thanks for the link showing Crowley is a Democrat,

an incumbent Democrat. He has not switched parties to game the system.

[ucrdem]

155. Exactly. Crowley is currently a Democratic member of Congress

and can be relied on to support Democratic policies including the ACA. If Ocasio-Cortez stays the course she will doubtless win the seat. If she doesn't then Crowley will probably keep it. It's a Dem win either way so it seems highly advisable that Crowley remains on the ticket.

[Jim Lane]

148. OK, I'm out. No point in continuing. You are impervious to facts or logic.

You wrote, "Crowley's name is on the ballot as a Democrat." You can duck and bob and weave and evade and distract all you want, but that statement is false.

You say Ballotpedia considers him a Democrat. Well, I consider him a Democrat, too, just as I consider him a Catholic, an Irish-American, and any number of other things. That's not the point.

The question is whether his name will be "on the ballot as a Democrat." It won't be. That's that.

While you're looking at that Ballotpedia page, note how it depicts the general election. There's a candidate named Anthony Pappas, who has a red dot by his name. That's because he's the Republican nominee. There's a candidate named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has a blue dot by her name. That's because she's the Democratic nominee. Let me repeat, THE Democratic nominee.

Crowley has a gray dot by his name. It's not blue because he's not on the ballot as a Democrat.

The ballot will not indicate anywhere that Joseph Crowley is a registered member of the Democratic Party. It will indicate only that the Democratic nominee is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and that two people (Pappas and Crowley) are the nominees of other parties, running against the Democratic nominee.

The Ballotpedia link is worth noting for those here who claim, falsely, that Crowley did not place himself on the general-election ballot. They try to make it sound as if poor Crowley, a loyal Democrat, was victimized by having the leaders of a different party somehow sneak his name onto the ballot against his will. As your Ballotpedia link states (in footnote 25), "Joseph Crowley filed for election on a minor party line." Yes, that's what happened. Crowley did everything he could to place himself on the general-election ballot on the Working Families Party line.

I doubt that the Ballotpedia link will convince any of the DUers who want to believe the contrary, but it does reinforce what any sensible person knows.

And with that, I'm done arguing with you.

[mcar]

96. No, see, it's voting for some Independents that's bad

Others deserve lifelong fealty from all Democrats.

[George II]

236. Bazinga!

I remember being told over and over again that "you're moving the goal posts"!

[oberliner]

91. Crowley has endorsed Ocasio-Cortez

And has said he is not running.

[sheshe2]

15. Hey Mel.

Good to see you again. I have so missed you here. You are a hoot to talk to.

melman
10. Are you advocating a third party vote?

Third party vote? Nah...that happened a long long time ago....2016 when some peeps thought it would be fun to vote for Jill, or write in against Hill. They wanted to put her in her place.l

Song for you. The day the music died. The good old boys. The whisky and rye and singing this will be the day that I died.

Hey Mel.

Are you advocating a third party vote?

Because it kind of seems like that's what you're doing when you say - 'Crowley's name is on a ballot'

I am not advocating for any third vote yet some candidates/advocates/ disrupters whatever they call themselves are messangering it.

Fact is Crowley is on the ballot and he did not place himself there.

Don't play your games with me I am not in the mood.

[ucrdem]

49. Crowley's name is on the ballot as a Democrat.

We've been through this before. The third party (working families) is putting forward a Democrat .

[oberliner]

89. Crowley has endorsed Ocasio-Cortez

And says that he is not running and the people should vote for her.

[Jim Lane]

123. That is absolutely false.

Crowley is a registered Democrat, but he is NOT "on the ballot as a Democrat." He's a Catholic, but he's not on the ballot as a Catholic, either. The ballot won't name him as a Democrat any more than it will name him as a Catholic.

There is only one person whose name is on the ballot as a Democrat: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Crowley is on the ballot as the nominee of the Working Families Party. In that capacity, he is one of the opponents of the Democratic nominee. He has said he won't campaign but he's still on the ballot. People can't vote for him and for the Democratic nominee. Anyone who votes for Crowley -- and some people will do so -- is voting against the Democratic nominee.

[ucrdem]

132. LOL. Please provide a link documenting his party change, TIA. nt

[Jim Lane]

134. You are REALLY reaching

What I actually wrote: "Crowley is a registered Democrat...."

So you demand that I "provide a link documenting his party change" -- after I've expressly stated that he didn't change parties? LOL, indeed!

Here's my full sentence, without the ellipsis:

Crowley is a registered Democrat, but he is NOT "on the ballot as a Democrat."

If you mean you want a link for the second part of the sentence, then you just haven't been paying attention. Numerous posts on DU have addressed the incontestable fact that, unless something changes, Crowley will be on the ballot as the nominee of the Working Families Party, while someone else (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in case you missed it) will be on the ballot as the nominee of the Democratic Party. See my post #114 for an explanation of how a registered Democrat can qualify as the nominee of the Working Families Party.

[ucrdem]

135. So he is, was, and will assuredly remain a reliable (D). Thanks! nt

[Jim Lane]

137. No, thank YOU for finally conceding that your post #49 was false.

As to whether Crowley is reliable, that's another question. We can hope that, after this January, it will become an irrelevant question.

(I hope it will become irrelevant because I'm rooting for the Democratic nominee to win the NY-14 race. Apparently, not everyone on DU is rooting for the Democratic nominee. Some of them are overtly or covertly supporting one of the Democratic nominee's opponents, an opponent endorsed by the odious McCain-endorsing Joe Lieberman. Well, it takes all kinds.)

[ucrdem]

139. That's very imaginative.

Have you considered creative writing?

[R B Garr]

201. +++. nt

[lapucelle]

233. Crowley is a Democrat

whose name will be listed on the WFP line as a candidate for Congress. Being listed as a candidate on a minor party's line doesn't obviate affiliation with the party of one's choice.

Crowley has affirmed that he is a Democrat and that he is not running. He has endorsed AOC as he pledged he would during their debates.

www.timesledger.com/stories/2018/29/crowleywfp_2018_07_20_q.html

Turnout will undoubtedly be robust in the general election, as we are voting for governor and senator as well as representatives, but AOC has no reason to worry. As she told the New Yorker:

"I’m twenty-eight years old, and I was elected on this super-idealistic platform,” she said. “Folks may want to take that away from me, but I won. When you hear ‘She won just for demographic reasons,’ or low turnout, or that I won because of all the white [voters*] in Astoria—maybe that all helped. But I smoked this race. I didn’t edge anybody out. I dominated. And I am going to own that.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/23/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-historic-win-and-the-future-of-the-democratic-party

*AOC used a problematic expression (for effect only - the author puts it in quotes) that is often deemed offensive.

[Jim Lane]

240. Do you agree with me that the subject line of post #49 is false?

Just to reiterate, in case there's someone among the Crowley cheerleaders who can read, the statement at issue is:

Crowley's name is on the ballot as a Democrat.

I've pointed out that that statement is false.

In response, I hear over and over again that he's a Democrat. No one has ever denied it, any more than anyone has denied that he's a white male.

The ballot will not say that he's a Democrat. It will not say that he was elected in 2016 as a Democrat. It will not say that he chairs the Queens Democratic Party. There is no meaningful sense in which his name will be on the ballot as a Democrat.

In fact, his name will be on the ballot as one of the opponents of the Democratic nominee.

There is only one person whose name will be on the ballot as a Democrat. That person, the sole nominee of the Democratic Party in this race, is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She'll be listed along with all the other Democratic nominees (Cuomo or Nixon, Gillibrand, etc.). IOW, she will be identified on the ballot as a Democrat. Crowley will not be.

[lapucelle]

241. No. Crowley is a Democrat, he is not running, and he endorsed AOC. N/T

[Jim Lane]

242. Stop it with the "Crowley is a Democrat"! Will he be ON THE BALLOT as a Democrat?

I wrote, in the post you're purportedly answering: "There is no meaningful sense in which his name will be on the ballot as a Democrat."

That's why #49 is false.

You say you don't agree that it's false but all you do is repeat that he's a Democrat.

Do you people enjoy endlessly winning and re-winning an argument that no one is making? I guess if you play tennis against a brick wall, no opponent can ever score on you. Have fun.

[ucrdem]

243. He is and will be Chairman of the US Congressional Democratic Caucus.

He will be representing NY's 14th Congressional district as a Democrat. He will be the fourth-highest ranking position in House Democratic Leadership. Here's his website:

https://crowley.house.gov/

Does that answer your question?

[lapucelle]

249. ...

[R B Garr]

154. If people vote for Crowley, they are voting for a Democrat.

He is an incumbent Democrat in the district. If they vote for him, they are voting for a Democrat. He did not switch parties to game the system. He did not switch parties.

[ucrdem]

156. Exactly.

[George II]

183. Like it or not, Crowley is the Chairman of the Queens County Democratic Party.....

....he IS a Democrat. Has been for decades.

[Jim Lane]

189. Like it or not, he is not "on the ballot as a Democrat."

I'm really tired of all this distraction and evasion. This subthread is about ucrdem's post #49. I say the assertion in that post is false.

I have NOT said that Crowley is not a registered Democrat. I have NOT said that he's not a Democratic Party official. I have NOT said that he's a lousy dancer. I have said only that he is not on the ballot as a Democrat.

Please examine post #49. Do you believe that its assertion is true, that its assertion is false, or that you don't know whether it's true or false?

[ucrdem]

191. He's running as a Democrat on a minor party line.

How hard is that to understand? And unless you can post a screenshot of the Nov. ballot proving otherwise you're talking out of your ear.

[George II]

98. Crowley IS on the ballot for the Working Families Party, just was in....

2012
2014
2016

No one had a problem back then.

[Jim Lane]

124. No one had a problem in prior years... when he wasn't on the ballot AGAINST the Democratic nominee

In 2012, 2014, and 2016, Crowley was the Democratic nominee. He used New York's "fusion" law to help get elected. No one had a problem with his WFP candidacy when the votes for the WFP candidate would be added to the votes for the Democratic candidate to produce the total.

In 2018, that's not the case. The votes for the WFP candidate will not be added to the votes for the Democratic candidate. This year, a vote for Crowley is a vote against the Democratic nominee.

[R B Garr]

194. A vote for Crowley would be a vote for the best Democrat

according to the voter. Where have we heard that reasoning before??

[Jim Lane]

195. So you're advocating a vote AGAINST the official Democratic nominee?

That seems to be the clear meaning of your post, but I just want to make sure I understand you.

[R B Garr]

196. I don't live in New York, but your tortured reasoning is

contradictory to what we’ve been subjected to for several years. His constituents would be voting for a Democrat, and that would be the best Democrat in their estimation.

[Jim Lane]

203. Some people will vote for Crowley as being the best REPUBLICAN.

The district is blue but has some right-wingers. Many of them will vote for Crowley.

This is what happened in Connecticut in 2006 after Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate to a more progressive challenger, Ned Lamont. Just as Crowley will, Lieberman appeared on the general-election ballot as a minor-party nominee, as one of the opponents of the Democratic nominee. (Lieberman, like Crowley, remained a registered Democrat. Nevertheless, he was not on the ballot as a Democrat, nor will Crowley be.) It was clear that the Republican nominee had no chance of winning (as it will be in NY-14 this year). Therefore, Republicans who didn't want to waste their votes faced a choice between the progressive Democratic nominee and Lieberman, who was more conservative. Lieberman was endorsed by the likes of Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and Jack Kemp.

According to exit polling of the general election, Democrats voted for Lamont by 65% to only 33% for Lieberman. Lieberman won re-election on his minor-party line anyway, however, with the votes of 54% of the independents and fully 70% of the Republicans.

Therefore, you cannot make the comforting assumption that anyone who votes for Crowley this year will be voting for him because they consider him the "best Democrat." Some will, but Crowley will also be the natural choice for Republicans who support Trump and who oppose everything that today's Democratic Party stands for.

Lieberman, of course, campaigned actively. We can hope that Crowley will adhere to his promise not to do so. Even if he keeps his head down, though, there will be people (like Lieberman himself!) touting a Crowley vote. As a long-time incumbent, he will have high name recognition, as did Lieberman. It's not impossible that Crowley could defeat the Democratic nominee, as did Lieberman.

Here on Democratic Underground, a candidate who might defeat the Democratic nominee is generally disfavored. I guess that rule doesn't apply in some circumstances (cough cough former Bernie Sanders organizer cough cough).

[R B Garr]

205. Crowley didn't switch parties. He's a Democrat. He's been a Democrat for

decades. What's funny is that Cortez just used a Koch funded study to support her claims about Medicare for All. Are the Koch's Democrats now??

The rest of your post is really another desperate attempt to malign good Democrats. Lieberman had a lot more going on that we can't bring up cough cough. He's not relevant. This is all in relation to the incorrect accusations and inferences that Crowley acted in bad faith to game the system by running as an Independent.

[Jim Lane]

207. Lieberman didn't switch either.

For both Lieberman and Crowley, the following statements are true: He was a registered Democrat. He was elected as the Democratic nominee. Seeking re-election, he lost the Democratic primary to a more progressive challenger. Nevertheless, he appeared on the general-election ballot as the candidate of a minor party, in opposition to the Democratic nominee, even though he himself remained a registered Democrat.

(The statement as to Crowley is partly prospective. He still has time to work with the WFP to get his name off the ballot. He's said he won't do it, though, and my guess is that he won't change his mind.)

There was recently a study, funded directly or indirectly by the Kochs, that concluded that Medicare for All would reduce total health care expenditures by $2 trillion. I haven't followed the NY-14 race closely enough to know the details of the health care issue. Based on your comment, I'll hazard a guess: Ocasio-Cortez, a supporter of Medicare for All, cited this study to support her position that Medicare for All would be an improvement. I do know that the authors of the study, being right-wing ideologues, tried to emphasize the conclusion that expenditures by the federal government would increase. That conclusion is certainly true, even if the Kochs funded the study and even if the authors overstated the increase, as there is reason to believe they did. The most important bias came in the authors' attempt to bury the key conclusion about the overall savings. If Ocasio-Cortez was highlighting that point, then more power to her.

[R B Garr]

209. You are switching the concern now. First the concern was that Crowley wasn't a Democrat

and was an Independent because of his name on the ballot. Crowley is a Democrat. He hasn't switched parties. The most recent example of a politician *actually* switching parties is Bernie Sanders. He switched from Independent then to Democrat and then back to Independent. He has a regular practice of switching affiliations in his home state of Vermont. Now you are trying to deflect from Bernie and pretend that this is all about Lieberman after all... By your standards, Bernie lost to a more progressive challenger.

And I'm no billionaire or anything like that, but I don't need a billionaire to fund a study to tell me that federal expenditures for Medicare for All would increase. That's just common sense. The Koch brothers are billionaires.

[Jim Lane]

210. You are flatly misstating the facts.

You write, "First the concern was that Crowley wasn't a Democrat and was an Independent because of his name on the ballot."

I have never said that Crowley wasn't a Democrat. I have never said that he was an Independent. I have never said that his name would be on the ballot as an Independent.

What I have said is what I thought would be obvious: The ballot will list the Democratic Party nominees for various offices, from Governor on down, and that list will include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the sole Democratic Party nominee for Congress.

I got into this in response to the following false statement in #49: "Crowley's name is on the ballot as a Democrat." From the author of that statement, and from other DUers who manifest hostility to the sole and actual Democratic nominee in the race, I get comments about a myriad of other points, and now I get you repeating the time-honored but totally discredited lies about Bernie. (I'll admit that you don't confine yourself to the old lies. You add a new one: "By your standards, Bernie lost to a more progressive challenger." No, by my standards Bernie lost to a less progressive challenger. You may consider Clinton more progressive but don't try to ascribe your opinions to me.)

What I don't see in any of this is anyone responding what I actually wrote, namely that #49 was false. So far, that silence includes you.

Here's your chance. The statement at issue is the assertion that "Crowley's name is on the ballot as a Democrat." I say that statement is false. If you have any basis for defending it, I'm all ears. If, on the other hand, you'll have the honesty to admit that it's false, then we could at least make some progress.

[R B Garr]

211. No, you are flatly trying to switch the concern now that you've been deflated

about Crowley being an Independent. Your efforts proved flatly wrong by trying to pretend that Crowley had bad intentions about having his name on the ballot. Your own previous posts contradicts your current post. You resorted to calling Crowley a Republican now when your Independent label didn't stick, and then you tried to drag Lieberman into it when the immediate and relevant person who has run as an Independent and then Democrat and then Independent again is Bernie Sanders.

Crowley is a Democrat. Your own "standards" were to try and assert that if a Democrat losses, then it's assumed it was because the opponent was more progressive. That is how you were trying to smear Crowley, so that should apply to Bernie if that is the only logic you are applying.

Bernie Sanders switches parties as part of a knowing strategy. Crowley didn't have those same intentions, so we should just accept that he is on the ballot, he is a Democrat, he is a well-known Democrat and should not be smeared.

[Jim Lane]

222. Is this post intended as a parody?

I asserted that I had never said Crowley was an Independent. You repeat your lie that I did say that.

If you were right, it would be very easy for you to prove that MY statement was the lie. All you'd have to do is link to the post in which I supposedly said he was an Independent, or in which I supposedly said that he had changed his party registration.

You don't do it because you can't because no such post exists. You're just making shit up to bolster your position.

You've added this knee-slapper:

Your own "standards" were to try and assert that if a Democrat losses, then it's assumed it was because the opponent was more progressive.

That's total bullshit. I never made any such ridiculous assumption. Consider two Democratic primaries, Newman versus Lipinski and Ocasio-Cortez versus Crowley. In each case the incumbent was more conservative and the challenger was more progressive. The progressive in Illinois lost but the progressive in New York won. So obviously you can't make such facile assumptions. Marie Newman is indisputably more progressive than the anti-choice Dan Lipinski, who beat her.

I really don't know why I bother with you people. Half-truths, distractions, distortions, and outright lies. Post the link to where I said Crowley is an Independent or I'll do my best to resist the temptation to waste any more time on this.

[R B Garr]

224. You keep trying to shift the concern. That is the main thing going on here.

You are shifting the tone to something if it doesn't test well, shall we say. It's also a shame that you insist on trying to get people to talk about you personally, when we really don't have to do that.

You have many posts on this subject, and you have definitely shifted your concern. The most obvious was trying to associate Crowley with Lieberman, and then adding that he was a Republican, a complete unnecessary smear of Crowley. That was in response to my post about voters in his district voting for the best Democrat if they chose him on the ballot, and you did a trial balloon type post calling Crowley a Republican. The posts are numbered.

I could say the same thing about bothering with people, i.e., half-truths, distortions outright lies (your words). Now you are just trying to make this personal. Your previous posts insisted on proving Crowley's position on the ballot proved he was an Independent and insisting that he is not an official Democrat merely because of his position on the ballot. The posts are numbered and there to read unless you deleted them. The point which you keep trying to twist is that he is a Democrat and insisting his position on the ballot implies he is not a Democrat. A twist of fate left his name on the ballot; it was nothing nefarious that he did. He didn't try to deceive anyone. He didn't try and game the system by switching from Democrat to Independent.

So you are the one trying to twist your own posts now. The main politician who has switched parties is Bernie Sanders. This is just hypocrisy being exposed about the whole Independent/Democrat vs Democrat/Independent conversation that his candidacy invoked.

edit: Here is your post #203 title calling Crowley a Republican. Talk abut "half-truths, distortions, outright lies" (your words). This is disgusting.
"203. Some people will vote for Crowley as being the best REPUBLICAN."

[pecosbob]

14. Okay...to be fair I imagine most voters stay home in ALL primaries...

so for that matter, not much point to the NYP story other than to sow disharmony.

[sheshe2]

32. Hey pecosbob.

The disharmony is people that are to damn lazy to vote in a primary. The outcome, ie Trump is on them. We don't have much time left. Clocks ticking and our Democracy is breathing her last breath. FACT!

[Bradshaw3]

16. So what's the point of bringing up a story from June now?

There were threads and posts about the low turnout then. Why is it being brought up now? Along with other critical stories on the first page today. She is the Democratic nominee.

[sheshe2]

26. She should spend time in her district, Bradshaw.

That was June and she is finally back there in August.

[Bradshaw3]

103. You didn't answer the question

Which is why is a story from two months ago is being posted now. The story wasn't about her not spending time in the district. It was abut her win margin. So the reason you gave for posting and the story don't match up.

[Equinox Moon]

17. Why are posting this?

Let's support dems and save our democracy.

[sheshe2]

41. I always support true Democrats.

Always.

[Devil Child]

111. Is Ocasio-Cortez a false democrat in your opinion?

As it seems you aren’t very supportive.

[fallout87]

227. Doesnt she claim to be

A democratic socialist? That doesnt sound like a Democrat to me..hence not a "true" democrat

[question everything]

18. That, and the "inevitability"

that we saw also in 2016. Voters were so certain that Hillary would win, that Crowley would win that they thought why bother.

[sheshe2]

24. And are certain that that AOC will win.

While she takes it for granted and runs everywhere but her district.

We need that seat.

[oberliner]

88. She will win and it won't be close; she is holding town halls in her district

There is zero chance of not winning the seat.

[KPN]

23. WTF?

[sheshe2]

27. WTF?

What?

[KPN]

110. Just WTF. Speaks for itself.

[ucrdem]

28. Good point on Crowley.

Novelty wears off fast in the big city.

p.s. I just voted

[sheshe2]

40. You VOTED!

Hurrah!

You are right novelty wears off....

Luv ya. ucrdem.

[ucrdem]

57. Thanks sheshe!

p.s. you've got mail . . .

[sheshe2]

59. Got it.

[chillfactor]

31. She is making me very nervous..

I think the victory has gone to her head...and she seems to be more of a disadvantage to Democratic candidates then an advantage

[Jamaal510]

75. Considering

how low the turnout was, I find it interesting that AOC has still been able to garner so much media attention and appearances on a number of shows, and how she has drawn more attention than other Democrats who have won since 1/2017.

[sheshe2]

79. Curious, isn't it, Jamaal....or not.

The polls/ wins say something different. Sharice and Whitmer speak volumes. They are just two recent wins. Whitmer was a win. Sharice came out of the blue. I am thrilled with both there wins. They are two women that fought the fight. They won. Yet AOC and BS backed the.....

[Renew Deal]

118. That's what I think is strange.

It's not like she really accomplished anything. It seems like she's famous for being famous.

[oberliner]

85. Packed room for @Ocasio2018 and @AdyBarkan tonight in the Bronx (Aug 7)

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Devil Child]

133. Thanks for sharing Oberliner

I hope all the posters hemming and hawing about Ocasio-Cortez “ignoring” her home state take note. Looks like she is generating strong support on the homefront in addition to national attention.

[George II]

202. "I havent seen a reception like this for a member of Congress for a while...."?

Was Crowley there?

[dembotoz]

94. So we refight primary results if they got support from Bernie

Got it

[Jim Lane]

125. Gee, ya think?

Your hypothesis explains it.

In fact, it explains even more. It explains the different responses when a Democratic incumbent has a primary challenge. If the primary challenger is supported by Berne, then all primary challenges are wrong, because we must devote time and energy and money to defeating Trump and the GOP, because the country is in crisis and any intra-party dispute is merely a distraction. OTOH, if the Democratic incumbent is someone who supported Bernie, then it's rah rah rah for the challenger.

[dembotoz]

153. it does get old doesn't it

[Jim Lane]

190. "I used to be disgusted. Now I try to be amused."

With all due respect to Elvis Costello, however, the operative word is try.

I try to be amused. I usually fail. So, yeah, it gets old.

[dsc]

101. The lack of turnout is bordering on scandalous

but not fairly blamed on her. To put the turnout figures in perspective, my district is a safe R district but we saw over double the turnout in our Democratic primary as there was in this one (by votes not percentage) And in many places this was the only race on the ballot. We can, and should, do better in terms of turnout than the numbers there.

[TheFarseer]

115. My understanding is

The NY political establishment made rules to make it difficult to vote and made it so there would be a bunch of primaries on separate dates so that no one except hardcore party people would vote in all of them so they would have more control on who their candidates ended up being and it backfired in this case.

[Renew Deal]

117. Not exactly right

It came from a federal lawsuit

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/nyregion/new-york-primary-congress-state-federal.html

[TheFarseer]

120. Ok, not as sinister as I had heard

Just weird and wasteful and more the Republican’s fault.

[Jim Lane]

126. The restrictive registration rules ARE the establishment's fault.

It was no federal lawsuit that gave New York its super-closed primaries.

Other states restrict primaries to registered members of that party. They differ in how long before a primary someone must change his or her registration to be eligible. I think the longest period outside New York is 30 days.

In New York, it's 30 days and then a general election. That means that, to vote in the June 2018 primary between Ocasio-Cortez and Crowley, someone registered with a different party or as an independent had to change party affiliation by early October 2017.

It gets worse. New York's primaries for state offices will be in September, with the same deadline. Someone who decided to re-register as a Democrat after the first week of October in 2017 can't vote in the Democratic primary in September 2018.

[lapucelle]

168. You understanding is not correct.

The practice dates to 2012 when the federal government won a lawsuit compelling New York to move its federal primary elections to the fourth Tuesday in June from September, when they had been held simultaneously with state primaries. The federal government asked for the change because it contended that a September primary did not leave enough time for military and overseas voters to get absentee ballots for the general election.

State lawmakers then could have moved the state primary election from September to June so that they would again line up. Although Democrats favored the switch, Republicans in Albany balked, arguing that because the state legislative session runs through the end of June, they would have no time in their districts to campaign.

snip========================

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York has for years criticized the Legislature for not voting to consolidate the primaries. In a statement on Monday, Richard Azzopardi, Mr. Cuomo’s spokesman, said that “the governor has been very clear that the status quo is wasteful, expensive and only leads to confusion and lower voter turnout. He’s long sought a unified primary date, which the Legislature hasn’t been able to agree on.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/nyregion/new-york-primary-congress-state-federal.html

[TheFarseer]

177. Yeah

I was a little off on the cause of this. Thanks for clarifying.

[lapucelle]

181. A lot of people were confused about the split primary.

One of my neighbors was upset that our polling place was closed. (There was nothing / no one on the ballot in our district.) He wanted to vote in the gubernatorial primary and didn't realize that primaries for state and local offices are being held in September.

[Renew Deal]

116. He could easily win on name recognition

Especially if republicans get involved

[Iggo]

119. Well, fuck those voters for sitting it out.

Seriously.

Fuck them.

If we vote, we win.

[Chickensoup]

130. Sheshe3 pls.stop demeaning her win,

a win is a win.you only hurt our chance
to get together all of us. She is out to win
not just making a token stand like current
leadership whether you agree with her
or not.

[sheshe2]

179. sheshe2 here

Chickensoup
130. Sheshe3 pls.stop demeaning her win,

sheshe2 here, not 3. I never demeaned her win. Everyone seems to believe it was a landslide when it was not. There was low voter turnout and no where did I say THAT was her fault. Nowhere did I say that.

a win is a win.you only hurt our chance
to get together all of us.

agree, then you go on to say...

She is out to win
not just making a token stand like current
leadership whether you agree with her
or not.

You accused me of demeaning her win, which I did not. Then you go on to demean our leadership. That you did.

Quote: She is out to win
not just making a token stand like current
leadership Our leadership is taking a token stand at winning?Interesting.

[MineralMan]

140. Like in so many other congressional districts,

I don't vote in NY-14. I have no say in who wins. If I did vote there, I'd vote for AOC, because I always vote for the Democrat on the ballot. I wish her luck in her race, just as I do for all Democrats on the November ballot.

It's her district, and the district of the people who live in it. They'll make their own decisions, and they'll do it without my input. I'll be voting tomorrow, in the MN-4 district. About 20% of registered Democrats will turn out here, too. That's the primary pattern. I think that's too bad, really. Lots more will come out in November, probably about 70%. They'll vote for whomever the 20% chose for them to vote for.

And so it goes. Occasionally, though, things don't go as expected. If there's nobody who excites or even interests the voters, they may not bother to vote in November, either. Or, they may see a familiar name on the ballot running under another political party and vote for the old familiar name. That can happen, too.

Either way, it will be the voters in each district who will decide. I have to focus on my own district and, maybe, a couple of nearby ones. I'll leave the others to the people in them, because I really have no choice, nor influence in those.

[Gothmog]

142. Great article

[melman]

145. Of course

Who doesn't love Rupert Murdoch's far-right tabloid the NY Post.

[lagomorph777]

143. I am stunned by the number of posts here trying to damage a Democratic candidate for Congress.

Isn't this a violation of DU policy?

Who's behind this?

[pwb]

144. So now Rupert Murdochs rag is a reliable source for democrats???

Another post bashing a democrat. Wow. Even using right wing links. Our loyalties have relaxed quit a bit here when it comes to this wonderful democratic candidate.

[melman]

146. Amazing isn't it?

The New York Post! Unreal.

[SMC22307]

159. Now, now, don't have an itty bitty hissy fit.

Seriously, search the archives for that way-back gem.

Rupert Murdoch's right-wing rag to attack a Democratic candidate... lawdy, what has happened to DU?

[pwb]

199. I don't know WTF that means? Murdochs NY Post is not a rag to you?

.

[Voltaire2]

149. For some here unity is only for their faction.

Truly disgusting behavior.

[Gothmog]

150. We are fortunate that the turnout in Michigan was higher

This is why Gretchen Whitmer won https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/08/08/turnout-shatters-recent-records-michigan-primary-elections/932623002/

LANSING – Voter turnout in Tuesday's primary election in Michigan broke records going back at least as far as 1978, a state elections official confirmed Wednesday.

More than 2.1 million votes were cast, and based on still incomplete and unofficial election returns, it appears voter turnout — measured by the percentage of registered voters who cast ballots — was close to 29 percent.

When turnout is measured based on the number of Michigan residents who are of voting age — the way the state tracks its historical data — Tuesday's figure was slightly lower, at 27 percent.

But both the total number of votes cast and the 27 percent turnout beat primary records of just more than 1.7 million votes cast in the 2002 gubernatorial primary and the previous high turnout percentage of 24.4 percent, set in 1982. Those numbers were the highest recorded in the state, going back at least as far as 1978, records show.

[Kaleva]

175. The article you linked to doesn't support your claim in the slightest.

It's embarrassing for all of DU when stuff like that gets posted.

[Gothmog]

188. The Our Revolution/AOC plans for Michigan were based on low turnout

AOC won in a low turnout race and AOC told pundits that she and the Our Revolution candidate were counting on a low turnout race to give the Our Revolution candidate a chance. Here is the thread discussing this https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210973603

Here are AOC's comments

Link to tweet

If you think about going to law school, you will learn that only amateurs make relevancy arguments. Relevancy arguments give the other side the opportunity to show how the material is relevant. Here AOC won due to a low turnout race and AOC campaigned for the Our Revolution candidate based on hoping for a low turnout race.

Again, we are fortunate that the Michigan race was not a low turn out race and that the real democrat Gretchen Whitmer prevailed.

[MichMan]

180. Whitmer had been favored to win the nomination for quite a while

Last edited Tue Aug 14, 2018, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)

It wasn't like the endorsement by AOC of Abdul El-Sayed accomplished anything

[riversedge]

151. self deleted

[heaven05]

152. very, very true

a lot of smoke and mirrors surrounding this 'rising star' card carrying member, their claim, of the socialist democrats of america minor faction of the of Democratic Party. Much smoke and mirrors. thanks for keeping things in proper perspective...

[sheshe2]

171. Hey!

[BeckyDem]

167. lol

[MadDAsHell]

170. Good. Then we know it pretty accurately reflects a general election..

...when most people ALSO stay home.

Another epically failed attempt to slander a respected Democratic candidate.

[lapucelle]

176. We'll be voting for senator and governor this year.

There should be a decent turnout for the GE.

[George II]

204. I heard that there's a lot of grumbling in the 14th District....

....particularly in Queens (where about 70% of the voters live) about her activities in the Midwest, California, and Hawaii.

[MaryELease]

214. You have?

Can you link to this documentation?
Any articles or numerous people on record from her district?

[George II]

215. Yes I have, and no I can't. I TALK to people. I grew up in Queens and lived in what is now...

....the district next to the 14th District.

[MaryELease]

217. So...

That's anecdotal, not empirical.

I have friends who live in the 14th and love her enthusiasm and efforts around the country, and they've said lots of people they talk to do as well.

Seems like an impasse because chit-chat and whisperings don't speak for any measured % that could be extrapolated.

[R B Garr]

220. Everything you posted is the same thing. Anecdotal, not empirical. What is being

reported is that she is a member of a group New Democrats where they have to make decisions by committee about policy, etc. Maybe that's a big topic for many in her district by people who might not have been aware of that arrangement during the primary.

[MaryELease]

221. Yes.

That was my point about your original post being anecdotal.

So where is this reporting you mention? Link?

Are you talking about the New Democrats - a term that is associated with Bill Clinton, Gore, and other members of the DLC from the late 80s & early 90s?

[R B Garr]

223. Yes, Cortez is affiliated with Bill Clinton, Gore and other members of the

DLC from the late 80s & early 90s.

I bet you know who they are -- Brand New Congress or something that sounds similar, Justice Democrats. I think there are a couple more names that I'm missing. I bet you know it's the Our Revolution type groups. Justice Democrats is funded by an "ex"-Republican.

[George II]

238. She also got her political start by working in Ted Kennedy's MA office.

As far as Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats are concerned, they spend virtually nothing on candidates or campaigning, but they do spend a good deal on themselves or each other.

Justice Democrats' largest disbursement in the last year was to Brand New Congress - 31% of their overall expenses.

On the other hand, Brand New Congress' largest disbursement (53% of their overall expenses) is to themselves, Brand New Congress! Their second highest expense was to Isra Allison, BNC's Executive Director and their third highest expense was to Zeynab Day, BNC's Communications and Press Director.

Those three combined account for 68% of their overall expenses!

[R B Garr]

250. Wow! Thanks, George! That is an interesting breakdown of their priorities.

Makes you wonder if Sanders knows about this and approves it, although I remember some recent news about his stepson making a large salary from his institute. Must be nice, but 68% for themselves sounds really over the top!

[George II]

252. Yes, throw the Sanders Institute is in that mix, too.

So far they've received about $460,000, $170,000 (37%) of which came from Our Revolution.

The Sanders Institute has three paid employees who get a total of $250,000 (54%) - $100,000 to Jane Sanders' son and $75,000 each to two other employees.

[KCDebbie]

226. AOC was a low-turnout winner but she's still a winner!

I thought it was amazing that, after a year and a half of lambasting the entire US non-voting public for contributing to the election of the Orange pecker, the Dem voters stayed at home in droves for this primary and hence AOC was elected, fair and square...

But after all is said and done AOC still has to win again this fall. Go AOC!

[grantcart]

245. Part of the problem was that they had multiple primaries

If you want to further drive down primary turnout then don't have all the primaries pn the same day

[ehrnst]

248. I think a lot of that gets forgotten in the excitement.(nt)

[OrwellwasRight]

251. Primaries always have low voter turnout.

So who cares?

Why the sour grapes over a Democratic win?

[choie]

254. It's just amazing how threatened

people are by Ocasio-Cortez's win.