Ocasio-Cortez backs campaign to primary fellow Democrats

[DonViejo]

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2018, 06:06 PM - Edit history (1)

The incoming congresswoman endorses an effort by the group Justice Democrats to make the House Democratic Caucus more liberal and diverse by taking on incumbents.

By ALEX THOMPSON 11/17/2018 07:24 PM EST

Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Saturday threw her weight behind a new national campaign to mount primaries against incumbent Democrats deemed to be ideologically and demographically out of step with their districts.

The incoming star congresswoman from New York again put the Democratic establishment on notice that she and activist groups on the left aren’t content with a Democratic-controlled House: They are determined to move the party to the left.

"Long story short, I need you to run for office," Ocasio-Cortez said Saturday on a video conference call hosted by Justice Democrats, as the group launched a campaign dubbed “#OurTime.” Justice Democrats supported Ocasio-Cortez's primary campaign against powerful Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.).

"All Americans know money in politics is a huge problem, but unfortunately the way that we fix it is by demanding that our incumbents give it up or by running fierce campaigns ourselves," Ocasio-Cortez added. "That's really what we need to do to save this country. That's just what it is."

more
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/17/ocasio-cortez-throws-support-behind-campaign-to-primary-democrats-1000529

[manor321]

1. Yes and no

I fully favor running primaries against conservadems. That's how democracy works. Even if the incumbent wins, it will push them to the left.

However, we DON'T fix money in politics by forcing Democrats to give up sources of money. That's a ridiculous unilateral disarmament. We have to work to change the laws so it affects everyone equally.

[Hortensis]

15. Wel, they CLAIM they won't do what you want.

At least they say they intend to target representatives whose votes do not represent their constituents' wishes.

Right. I don't believe it either.

Btw, I have a very different view of how democracy works. I thought constituents were supposed to be able to elect people to represent them in government. You may not like the existence of the half of our nation that is conservative (I'm not crazy about that either), but our nation was founded on the belief that they have a right to exist and to be represented.

And if some choose to register Democrat because that's what people in their area do, oh well. Again their right.

What these people need is good conservative-progressive Democrats to vote for, not left-wing zealots swarming in to hijack their elections. Because that's what it would be.

[TheBlackAdder]

245. We can start with the 16 DINOs that signed the anti-Pelosi letter, Dems internal shit-stirrers.

[dalton99a]

2. How to Win Friends and Influence People

[bitterross]

87. STOP USING RW SOURCES TO TELL US WHAT WE THINK. THEY WANT US TO FIGHT.

She implored people to run for office. She didn't say primary people.

STOP, JUST STOP, REPEATING RIGHT-WING TALKING POINTS MEANT TO CAUSE US TO FIGHT WITH EACHOTHER.

[George II]

92. From the article upon which it appears The Hill's article is based:

"All Americans know money in politics is a huge problem, but unfortunately the way that we fix it is by demanding that our incumbents give it up or by running fierce campaigns ourselves," Ocasio-Cortez added.

The incoming congresswoman's chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, a co-founder of Justice Democrats, was blunter.

"We need new leaders, period," he said on the call. "We gotta primary folks."

[Cha]

148. Why are you addressing that to dalton?

He didn't post the OP?

[bitterross]

171. Because it was the best way to get it at the top of the thread. /nt

Also, I thought the comment applied equally to the OP and any supporting post.

[Cha]

174. The OP is quoting AOC.. too bad you don't like it.

[bitterross]

197. Too bad we spend so much time fighting one another and not the GOP.

The woman hasn't even taken the oath of office yet and has lot to learn and experience. It seems a bit silly to me to get so worked up about her youthful naivete and exuberance at this point in time.

We have 2020 to worry about and I doubt her currents thoughts will be the same by the time the primaries actually hit.

[Cha]

202. Yeah, too bad she's talking about primarying Dems and

not the gop.

[disillusioned73]

241. How would you recommend a Democrat primary a Republican??

asking for a friend..

[Cha]

243. Campaign Against Fascist Fucks..

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

252. More like AOC has a lot to teach... love her!

[oasis]

3. Is that why her district sent her to congress?

[Hortensis]

19. According to Roll Call, 5% of her district voted

in the primary, the rest of the usual voters apparently assuming things would come out as expected without them. Ocasio got a modest but definite majority of that 5% over Joe Crowley.

So, while technically "her district" did send her to congress to behave this way, we don't know what the 97+% who didn't are making of their Wednesday morning surprise. Some unofficial indications are she's not wowed them yet. But she has two years to learn what they want and, you know, represent them.

[oasis]

27. I thought Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia was quite a firebrand. Her

constituents gave her 6 terms before they said "enough".

[Hortensis]

82. :) Yes. A strong personality.

Hopefully passionate commitment to reforming...uh...rampant mainstream corruption is all they have in common.

I imagine they're otherwise very different people, but McKinney's post-congressional career, interesting views aside, is nevertheless a cautionary tale for Ocasio.

[LBM20]

64. She needs to stop the national spotlighting and focus on her OWN district. Or they'll toss her.

[Hortensis]

85. :) Yes. Can she is what we're waiting to see, of course.

After all, most people who have to run as alternatives to mainstream candidates turn out to be at least somewhat wiser and more able to work with others than they projected from the stump. Then there are the rest...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

253. It was to send a message... the real question is whether it's been received.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. .

[GoCubsGo]

5. As I said before, she is in for a rude awakening.

Once she actually has to start doing the job for which she was elected, she's not going to find time for this kind of crap. And, if that's what she concentrates on, it is only going to find her with a slew of primary challengers of her own in 2020. I won't be surprised if Crowley runs again, and regains his seat then.

[DonViejo]

7. To me, she behaves like she's serving on the Student Governance Board of some college.

And I agree with you, "she is in for a rude awakening."

[elfin]

29. She isn't going to do her job for her district -- she thinks that THIS is her job despite the scanty

percentage of actual Dem voters who voted for her.

She thinks her job is to divide the Dems no matter the cost. A firebrand relishing and loving the limelight.

We don't need this crap.

As I have said many times Dems always, always find ways to hurt themselves on the cusp of victory.

She will spend her time on the road and on media. A show horse and not a work horse.

[GoCubsGo]

37. No. She's y9ung and naive.

She wants to change the world. She thinks this is how you do it. It's not, and she is about to find that out.

[R B Garr]

120. Exactly. The default position is always running against other

Democrats. What a great position for ex-Republicans like Cenk Uyger who founded the Justice Democrats group. The emphasis is on attacking Democrats, and incumbents at that.

[Gothmog]

109. I have no doubt that AOC will be primaried in 2020

[brush]

162. Yep, seems she thinks she's immune to being primaried herself.

What happens to shooting stars?

[Gothmog]

222. Primaries work both ways

[Demsrule86]

192. I agree and her district will expect her to work on their behalf...not sure getting involved with

Justice Democrats is a good move for her. Pretty much all their candidates lost.

[octoberlib]

6. Did anybody she endorsed and campaigned

for win in the midterms? I agree about getting money out of politics.

[Kaleva]

11. There were some.

Rashida Tlaib is one I know for sure.

"Former Michigan state Rep. Rashida Tlaib has become one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, after winning her race for Michigan’s 13th Congressional District on Tuesday. "

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/6/18049512/midterm-election-results-michigan-congress-rashida-tlaib-muslim

[George II]

49. Not to seem critical of Tlaib, she's going to be a great Representative and do her district proud

but that endorsement of her really was jumping on the bandwagon. Her district is overwhelmingly Democratic, she got 85% of the vote in the general election.

[Kaleva]

90. Rashida Tlaib won a squeaker in the primary and AOC's prior endorsement may have helped

Rashida Tlaib 31.2% 27,803

Brenda Jones 30.2% 26,916

Bill Wild 14.1% 12,589

Coleman Young II 12.5% 11,162

Ian Conyers 6.6% 5,861

Shanelle Jackson 5.4% 4,848

https://ballotpedia.org/Rashida_Tlaib

[Basement Beat]

117. I really don't think AOC made a bleep in the local radar...

except for the folks whose mind was long made up for Tlaib (who I voted for and have voted for Jones in other local races) anyways.

[Eric J in MN]

167. And Ayanna Pressley (D-MA).

That was a rare case where I disagreed with AOC. I thought that US Rep Michael Capuano (D-MA) deserved re-election based on his progressive voting record.

[Eric J in MN]

172. And Ilhan Omar (D-MN).

Most of the candidates AOC endorsed lost. That’s typical when taking on the Establishment. The Establishment usually wins.

[Hortensis]

23. October, if she wants money out of politics, she really

needs to get on board with what the rest our Democratic caucus will be doing. If she doesn't, they'll do it without her, and she'll spend the next two years either pretending she's part of our reforms or trying to derail them to promote herself and her dissident group. And that way lies oblivion.

The role I'd like to see her play is underlining the call for and rallying support for strong reforms.

Elizabeth Warren speaks up when she wants us to push farther, but always as a member of the team achieving common goals. Warren has always understood that big reforms happen when reformers have enough power, and not otherwise. That's why, when the Republican Party set out to destroy progressivism and Warren left the Republican Party, she joined the Democratic Party.

Warren joined to use the power of the Democratic Party to achieve her goals.

Will Ocasio be that smart? Or is she doomed to be a lifelong dissident like Sanders?

[Stinky The Clown]

28. "Or is she doomed to be a lifelong dissident like Sanders?"

I don't think she'll last that long.

[Hortensis]

46. Agree, she may disappear into another career as most do. BUT,

by an accident of history combined with genuine public speaking talent and belief in herself, she does have a big start to a political career if she doesn't mess it up. Nationally known at 29 and arriving in congress as a freshman with a power bloc.

So far, though, she's looking ominously like a zealot who can spend an entire life never accepting what Elizabeth Warren probably would have understood and accepted at 10. If her electoral career fizzles, though, we could still be seeing her for decades as a talking head around elections, leading up her own dissident political action group, throwing elections to one party or another, etc.

If she has any sense, she'll have noted that Sanders's success is not the usual story. And she may not want to do what he's had to to remain in office all this time: criticize and disagree, vote with, resume criticizing and disagreeing. For 30 years? At some point she also needs to consider now historians may describe his role in this era's dangerous battle between our continuation of liberal democracy and rising right-wing authoritarianism and nationalism. I see no sign that she has yet.

[brush]

165. Not in the House with their 2-year terms. She could be out before she learns the ropes.

[George II]

53. I don't know about candidates that she endorsed personally, but her organization...

...Justice Democrats (of which she is one of two board members) had a dismal record this year in primaries and general elections. They endorsed almost 80 candidates, only 9 won (at least three of which are in HUGE Democratic districts or ran unopposed)

On the other hand, the Democrats who ran against most of their endorsed candidates in their respective primaries won their general elections, many handily.

[Thekaspervote]

86. Well, that says a lot. Hopefully the Dems will move on without her if she doesn't come around

You can’t burn the big tent down and expect to find anyone left willing to support you

[Gothmog]

111. Justice Democrats is backed by that cenk character on TYT

Cenk does not like the Democratic Party and I stopped paying attention to Cenk and the TYT a long time ago. I see that they are still around when I peek at JPR.

Justice Democrats did not win many races

[Gothmog]

110. She campaigned agaisnt Sharice Davids and lost badly

[George II]

132. And Christine Whitmer and Lacy Clay in their primaries, too. All three won their primaries...

...and were elected last week.

[Gothmog]

135. These were very poor choices on the part of AOC

[Cha]

152. Hi George..

It's Gretchen Whitmer!

[nini]

144. That act alone bothered me quite a bit.

Sharice Davids is an amazing person and will do good things.

I expect her to be around for some time and do a lot of good.

[Gothmog]

225. Sharice Davids looks like she will be a star in the new Congress

[Cha]

186. AOC campaigned against Sharice Davids, Gretchen

Whitmer, and Lacy Clay in the primaries and she and BS LOST.

Thank Goodness!

[Demsrule86]

198. United has to fall or we will lose the house again...you need money to run.

[Hortensis]

8. Meanwhile, our caucus plans public financing of elections.

Requiring identification of dark money donations and donors. Closing the hole that allows foreign governments to finance candidates by donating to their PACs.

And literally dozens of other important reforms and repairs of the corruption Republicans have instituted.

Some may be done this term, by far most can will be completed if we get the senate in 2020.

Repeal of Citizens United and laws based on it need constitutional amendment, but it looks like the people are finally ready to demand it. Itm, voters will have a real and clear choice between publicly financed candidates (who will no longer have to accept money from big donors to win because their constituents are too low-income to donate) and those who are financed by big donors.

Our house democracy reform task force will hit the ground running on January 3, having already been working on it with various reform groups for months.

[JHan]

14. Exactly. But you know we're gonna get people defending this shit.

I won't forget the stunt against Davids either.

[Thekaspervote]

88. Yes! That was the end of my support for her

[Celerity]

145. stunt is a curious term

Brent Welder, the candidate that most progressive groups endorsed was in the race since July 2017.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article163276003.html

In December, the main centrist Democratic candidate, Andrea Ramsey, dropped out due to a sexual harassment scandal

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article189932394.html

It wasn't until mid February, 2018 that the groups supporting Ramsey convinced Davids to enter the race

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article200265694.html

What were the groups supporting Welder supposed to do? Switch support after 7, 8 months just because Davids entered the race?

There was no 'stunt'.

The race was also far closer than some on here are saying. Davids won by around 2000 votes, 3% over Welder, in a crowded field.

[JHan]

153. But I am not arguing that Welder should not have run.

Once Davids ran you had two main progressive challengers ( for the most part) In a crowded field with only the slightest gradations in differences where policy positions are concerned between them. So it was not ideological, and I do remember the attacks on Davids which tried to paint her as things she was not. In that sense, my perception was stunt. Do you have a similar explanation for Lacy Clay? Or Whitmer? Or do you believe that it is fine for a freshman to Congress to throw her political capital behind primarying people outside her district which results in factional bickering and fodder for headlines?

[Celerity]

194. I can point to 4 positions on big issues where they differed (Welder and Davids)

Welder unequivocally ran on a Medicare-for-all, 15 dollar an hour living wage, a refusal to take corporate money, and free public university tuition platform.

Davids never stated clear support for any of the 4. She also flip-flopped on whether she supported abolishing ICE, first saying she did, then after winning the primary, running an advert specifically saying she did not.

Whether you support those stances or not, they did provide differentiation. I m sure the same thing took place, to more or lesser degrees, in the other 2 races. I know Clay is in favour of Medicare for all. Whitmer is in favour of universal coverage, but wants to keep private, for profit insurance companies involved.

My whole point is that it is natural to have policy disagreements, and natural for a group that stands for certain things to back candidates that do the same. I would never call it a stunt or say it is a bad thing. We live in a laboratory of democracy. I welcome cogent, tough, hard, enlightening debate.

[JHan]

208. Once more there's nothing wrong with a policy disagreement...

As I've said in this thread, it is not about having a difference of opinion on policy.

It's not about having an opinion about politics in other regions of America.

My concern is about a freshman wanting to direct her attention to districts not her own with the intent to primary incumbents. Her political capital can be better spent working with her colleagues and building a network of allies. If she wants to embark on a project to influence other districts outside her own at this time, I'll be paying close attention to which and how that impacts the chances of Dems in those districts she has in her sight - especially if in those districts a more moderate Democrat may be a better fit..

The enemy are the Republicans, I'd like us to remember that.

[Hortensis]

239. Discussion/disagreement worth reading. Thanks,

both of you. We of course agree we need to focus on stopping what today's Republicans are doing.

[George II]

181. Sharice Davids' primary was among six candidates. She actually got 10% more voted than

Welder (22,000 to 20,000) when comparing just the two.

She also was confronted with some really nasty campaigning - there were claims that she didn't live in the District (because she spent weeks at a time on Indian Reservations giving legal counseling to Native Americans), that she was gay, Native American, etc. Yet she still kept an upbeat, positive attitude and didn't get in the mud.

She had few outsiders campaigning for her, too, unlike her major opponent. And those outside groups weren't behind Welder 7-8 months before Davids got into the race.

It was worse during the general election campaign. "Nevertheless, she persisted" and destroyed Yoder. She's going to be a very impressive representative for the people of her district.

[Celerity]

203. I think she will be a good Rep too, but please, the 10% above number is entirely

meaningless statistically as it is pulled from a multivariate field. The only way to accurately gauge what percentage voters would actually favour one over the other is to run them against each other in a strictly 2 person race. There is zero possibility to extrapolate out what that outcome would be without doing that.

Ranked-choice voting is an alternative that I hope to see explode like wildfire nationwide. I think that will yield far more accurate results to what the electorate actually wants in terms of overall ideological bent.

[Cha]

235. Mahalo, Hortensis!

[RelativelyJones]

9. So she is going to start making enemies five minutes after getting there? Does she not realize she

may need their support to get anything done?

[Siwsan]

10. She needs to spend more time learning her job and less time threatening others

I worry she's a little too 'full' of herself. Someone should remind her that the whole primarying thing can be a double edged sword.

[Kaleva]

12. So your arguement is that we shouldn't have primaries?

Or that challengers to an incumbent ought not get any endorsements or support from outside sources? That only incumbents can get that?

[Siwsan]

13. No - that's not what I mean

I have NO problem with ineffective people being primaried, but I am uncomfortable with someone who isn't yet even 'on the job' making threats to people who have served long and honorably, before she's even on day one of the job.

I could be wrong, but it looks to me like she's going in with a blow torch and scorched earth mentality. Let her learn the ropes and maybe she will become less idealistic and more realistic. Government is never going to be perfect and it desperately needs checks and balances. Our main focus should be on building, not destroying, within our own party. I want her to be an effective, progressive member of congress.

Does that makes sense? I'm always open to other views.

[still_one]

18. People in other states and districts can determine for themselves who they want to represent them,

and primary accordingly, they don't need an outsider telling them what THEIR district needs, and as of late she seems more concerned with other districts and what they do, other than her own

[Siwsan]

25. And I was just expressing my view, in general

I'm not trying to tread on anyone's toes. We all need to keep an eye on how things are progressing.

[still_one]

34. My comment didn't disagree with your point of view

[Siwsan]

35. I realized that, after I posted!! Sorry!!!

Sometimes I can get a little 'knee jerky' and respond before I process, completely. I slept for more than 4 hours, last night, so I think my brain is still in shock!!

[still_one]

47. Nothing to apologize for. There are going to be disagreements in discussions here, and that is a

good thing. We exchange ideas, and hopefully learn from each other


Take care

[Siwsan]

60. We most definitely think alike

And I thank you for your kindness. Sometimes that can be in slim supply.

[Nanjeanne]

102. Who determines who is ineffectual?

Isn’t the district the ones who would detetmin that? And if so, they make that point when they vote in the primary.

Without primaries Dem incumbents have a life long appointment until they lose to a Republican or decide to step down. That doesn’t seem like democracy.

[Siwsan]

108. I'm confused as to why this is an "argument".

Yes, the district is who determines that but it doesn't stop me from having an opinion, even if I'm not in that district. My opinion makes no difference in their vote. It's just my thoughts and I am pretty sure it's ok for me to have those.

[Nanjeanne]

112. "Argument"? Did someone say you couldn't have an opinion? I just gave mine as to why I think

primaries are a wonderful thing for a healthy democracy and why I think a district should be encouraged to participate in choosing the representative they want.

Color me confused as well.

[Siwsan]

119. We might just be miscommunicating

I think primaries are wonderful. I vote in each and everyone. I'm not saying ANYTHING against them.

I'm just pointing out that when encouraged within a party, it can become a double edged sword. Especially if the newcomer doesn't quite live up to expectations. I'd be less squinty of someone who gave them self time to learn the ropes - or at least figure out where those ropes are leading.

Fresh blood is great. Experience and knowledge is great. All we can do is vote our conscience, and then wait for the outcome.

[Nanjeanne]

146. AOC is young and inexperienced. But she has passion and brains and she is going to be a wonderful

addition in the House. I'm excited about her and guess I'm more forgiving of her, what I perceive as, minor mistakes because I think she is going to be a real force.

[Siwsan]

150. I am hoping she proves to be as you say

I'm sure someone will be there to offer to advise and mentor her, and that she will accept the mentoring and the advice. I hope to see that passion focused in a way best to serve the country.

I do remember how, too many times and in both the military and corporate world, I saw 'new blood' come in with guns blazing, determined to remake the environment to fit their vision. And I remember some of the resulting disasters that happened when they didn't listen to more experienced voices.

But, only time will tell. It is going to be interesting to see where she ends up, committee-wise.

[brush]

16. The danger in that is giving up the advantages of incumbency...

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2018, 12:14 PM - Edit history (2)

i.e. name recognition from holding the office and all that brings, in addition to being the favorite in the general election because of it.

You dump the incumbent and all that goes away and then the repug opposition is on equal footing because there is no incumbent. That leaves a sitting Democratic seat in danger of going over to the repugs.

The better strategy, and it's not rocket efn science, is to target repug incumbents and go after them to increase our advantage in the House. If we do happen to win in the general by dumping one of our own, we haven't increased out advantage in seats at all.

Duh!

I don't see at all how that is hard to grasp. You go after repugs not Democrats who you have much in common and can work with.

[George II]

134. It's November 2018. The next round of primary campaigns will begin in the spring of 2020....

....newly elected members of Congress should be concentrating on learning their upcoming jobs (they haven't even bee sworn in yet!) instead of planning OTHER candidates' campaigns 2-1/2 years from now.

Why is it that when someone criticizes how something is being done the question is "your argument is that we shouldn't have primaries?", which wasn't the "argument".

[grantcart]

157. First on the list is to primary any Democrat who makes it a priority to primary

Another Democrat before the pass their first legislation.

[meluvrem]

21. Let go ego AO

Thinks she's on high school student government council.
HELLO, THE THREAT IS IN THE WHITEHOUSE, MS. McFLY!
Open you eyes, prioritize!

[Gothmog]

113. I wonder what her committee assignment will be?

[Siwsan]

122. That will be interesting

I'm not all that familiar with her background. Whatever the committee, I'm just hoping there is substance and knowledge behind the style.

[still_one]

17. Of course this is from The Hill trying to stir up sh*t between Democrats. As far as representative

Cortez, it is way past time for her to start focusing on issues in her district.

As for other states and districts within those states, it will be up to those constituents to determine who they want to represent them, and it is time for Representative Cortez to now focus on her district

[DonViejo]

20. So, throwing her weight behind this movement is not to be reported upon and discussed?

[still_one]

40. Where did I say anything against NOT posting this OP? My comment was directed at The Hill, which

tends to go out of their way to focus on disagreement between Democrats, and on Representative Cortez who as of late seems more interested in things outside her district, along with grabbing headlines and attention

My comment was NOT directed personally at you, or that it shouldn't be discussed.

[DonViejo]

48. Sorry if you don't like it but, that's the the implication of your whining about The Hill.

"Goes out if it's way..." LOL. Reporting about a disagreement is now considered to be that? The Hill is a political publication, you expect every story they write about Dems to be "hey sanna ho sanna"?

[still_one]

63. I am stating my view about The Hill Don. Sorry that you are taking this personally. I feel the

same way about Politico. In my view they are gossip rags. That is just my view.

I didn't refute the validity of the story, nor say it shouldn't be posted

This is a discussion board, and as far as I am aware "whining" is part of it

and I have no problem with things being posted from The Hill, Politico. In fact, unless something is blatant propaganda which is being portrayed as fact, which none of this is, as far as I am concerned anything goes within the constraints of civility

[lapucelle]

41. Hopefully AOC realizes that she too will be an incumbent during the next midterm primary elections.

[Demsrule86]

76. I have no doubt she will be primaried...careful what you wish for...

[kstewart33]

149. She needs to be careful.

She could be easily primaried in 2020 as only 5% of the registered voters in her district voted in November.

[DFW]

22. If I remember correctly....

Last edited Mon Nov 19, 2018, 02:45 AM - Edit history (1)

She was elected to represent the people of her district in the House of Representatives as best she could.

If she is as good a legislator, debater, and student of issues before the Congress as she is at headline-grabbing, I'll be happy.

If she thinks her main mission as a Representative from New York City is to primary Democrats in North Carolina or Minnesota who, though representative of the people in their districts, are not far enough left for AOC's liking, she is sadly mistaken, and will fall to her own next primary challenger, whom she will have provided with plenty of ammunition. Her district is not made up solely of descamisados, and neither is the Democratic electorate nationwide.

[ismnotwasm]

24. *sigh*

I rarely do this but I’m really considering blocking anything to do with her her. She’s a junior congresswoman with a penchant for being annoyingly naive. She will learn, of that I have no doubt, but I’m interested in more than “Justice Democrats”. I want votes to improve or even radically change our approach criminal justice, healthcare, the environment, women’s rights, taxation. I don’t know what the mechanics of a Supreme Court challenge to Citizens United will take. But the recent Ohio ruling is terrifying for abortion rights—it will be challenged, and it could make it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the Janus case—setting unions back far back.


If I’m annoyed, others are annoyed, but she has a lot of political capital right now. Hope she doesn’t waste it.

[shanny]

26. I'd call this democracy in action.

Nobody "deserves" a seat just because he/she is an incumbent.

in short, "Good."

[brush]

183. What's even better is running against repug incumbents. Duh!

I don't get at all why some don't seem to grasp that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. "Democrats deemed to be ideologically and demographically out of step with their districts."

When true, in relatively safe Blue districts, primaries are the legitimate small "d" democratic means to seek better representation. Few here would instead argue in favor of a third party or Independent challenge to an incumbent Democrat in a general election.

Ocasio-Cortez herself owes her seat in Congress to this route to elected office. It would be foolish and intellectually dishonest of her to now oppose primaries against any incumbent Democrats. The devil in the details of course is in determining which Democrats are "ideologically and demographically out of step with their districts." For that, however, we have primary voters to turn to.

[JHan]

32. again, why is she the arbiter of what that is? She has her district to contend with,

why does she think it is her job to interfere in what primary voters in another district decide?

No one is arguing that you cannot hold primaries against an incumbent, that's a strawman. She has decided to throw her weight behind primary challenges against incumbents in other districts.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. She has her opinions, that doesn't make her the arbiter

Not any more than Bill Clinton was "the arbiter" when he was an early strong advocate for the DLC when they were trying to push the Democratic Party more toward the center in the late 80's early 90's. Some Democrats show no interest in politics beyond the boundaries of their districts, others do. This is not new nor unique to AOC. In fact it often happens with newly elected Democrats whose victory has some type of "buzz" associated with it. The public and the media always are looking for the next new thing. Many somewhat ambitious politicians (and ambition is not a bad thing when the motivation is public service) understand that they have a small window of opportunity to quickly establish themselves on the national stage. Sure they could choose instead to slowly work themselves up the ranks over 10 to 15 years, but increasingly that is no longer how it works. It is one of the reasons why Obama went so quickly from the State legislature to Senator to President, and that didn't work out so badly. Some were suggesting that he at least serve a full term in office, but instead he was laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign virtually as soon as he got to Washington. Was he wrong?

[JHan]

42. is Bill Clinton the subject here? We're talking about Cortez.

Was Lacy Clay and Sharice Davids centrists who needed their primaries interfered with?

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. The subject is trying to move the Democratic Party in one direction or another

I think there is a long tradition of Democrats trying to do just that, and I do not fault people for having that agenda. Some I agree with, some I don't, and like everyone else here I respect some public figures more than others, but we unite for the general elections.

[JHan]

50. so it is acceptable for a freshman to congress to make primary threats...

against people she has to work with. a factional fracas is exactly what we need right now yes?

If your argument is to "take the party in one direction" you will have to give solid reasons.

Both Lacy Clay and Davids are progressives, what was the issue there? what "direction" were Clay and Davids in that was just too untenable for Cortez she had to get involved?

[comradebillyboy]

68. Clay and Davis didn't support Bernie in 2016, their

primary opponents did. There's your Justice Democrat litmus test.

[Jim Lane]

89. Thank you for pointing out the absurd double standard here.

It's sad that we're evidently in for a steady stream of idiotic attacks on Ocasio-Cortez. She seems to be replacing even Susan Sarandon as the designated boogeywoman for a certain element on DU.

This thread is unintentionally hilarious. An elected legislator who expresses an opinion about anything other than pending legislation is shirking her job. Someone expressing an opinion about electoral politics outside her own district is trying to hijack the primary. We don't read this kind of bullshit about most Democrats, but for some reason Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is treated differently. I wonder what that reason could be....

[JudyM]

96. +1. Skewed infighting is a popular sport.

[Small-Axe]

99. Are other Democrats proposing to actively unseat Democratic incumbants outside their districts?

There is no double standard here. If one makes war on Democratic officeholders one must expect push-back.

[Jim Lane]

163. Your choice of words is amusing and instructive.

It's about the role of primaries. To the sincere progressives who choose to go with the Green Party or other minor parties, I say that they're making a sincere mistake -- precisely because Democratic Party candidates are chosen in primaries. If the votes are there to enable a Green to defeat a conservaDem in the general election, then it would be even easier for a progressive to win the Democratic primary. That's part of the system by which elected officials are kept responsive to their constituencies.

Many on DU share my view. This is the basis of the "Fuck Nader" school of thought. He should have run in the Democratic primaries. He would've gotten more votes (as Bernie showed in 2016) and we wouldn't have had Bush in office.

But: It's inconsistent to say that people dissatisfied with the incumbent (or other party establishment candidate) should run in the primary, but then to condemn any primary challenge as "mak[ing] war". This amounts to saying that progressives should just STFU.

There are millions of us who are not going to STFU. It's either a primary challenge or a minor party. As someone who believes in working within the Democratic Party, I resent the way some people are making that choice more difficult, and thus driving some voters into the arms of the Greens.

[Small-Axe]

175. I'm pretty sure we do not agree on the meaning of the term "progressive."

Democrats are progressives. Those who are naturally aligned with the Green Party? No so much.

Millions of us oppose the vision offered by the far-left and don't think it is progressive in the least. And we are by far the majority in the Democratic Party.

I resent that you think liberal Democrats should STFU. We will defend our party and not turn it over to erstwhile "Greens."

Rest assured on that.

[Jim Lane]

178. You have completely misunderstood my post.

You write:

I resent that you think liberal Democrats should STFU.

My actual point was precisely the opposite. Liberal Democrats should strive to elect policymakers who will move the country in a progressive direction.

The best way to do that, when there's a conservative Democratic incumbent, is to support a progressive challenger in the primary. If it weren't for the option of primarying a conservative Democrat, then the only alternative, for people dissatisfied with that incumbent, would be to align with the Greens.

If someone criticizes both of those choices, then he or she is in effect saying "STFU" to everyone to their left. I join you in rejecting that course. As my post made clear, I also join you in rejecting a switch to the Greens (or other minor party).

[Small-Axe]

187. I doubt we agree on who is conservative, liberal, or progressive.

I haven't missed your point. You'd like the party to look like the Green Party.

I disagree. I think there is a good reason the Greens are a tiny minority party who only serve as spoilers who help elect Republicans.

Letting spoilers who do not represent the will of the people take control of our party due to political blackmail is absurd. Those who align with the Greens can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

[Jim Lane]

236. You've added another revealing phrase

Here's what I get from your post: If there's a Democratic incumbent whom you like, but some other Democrats think the incumbent is too conservative, and they support a primary challenger, and the challenger has the audacity to win a fair and open primary, then that constitutes "political blackmail".

And here I thought it was called the democratic process.

If I've misinterpreted your post, perhaps you could explain to me how to distinguish between "political blackmail" primary campaigns and those that are not "political blackmail"?

If your answer is that any campaign against an incumbent is political blackmail, but that otherwise primaries are acceptable, be informed in advance that I won't buy it. First, there's no reason to believe that mere incumbency gives anyone a lifetime entitlement to the seat. Second, it's clear that not many people buy it when the ideological considerations cut the other way. Tulsi Gabbard, as a Democratic incumbent, has faced primary challenges, to the full-throated encouragement of many DUers. If I troubled to dig up those threads, I'd probably find that some people denouncing the idea of a primary challenge encouraged by Ocasio-Cortez were among those supporting a primary challenge.

That's how primaries work. Incumbents aren't immune, and people can support the incumbent or the challenger, as they choose. The Democratic nominee will be the one who gets the most votes in the Democratic primary.

Tossing around terms like "blackmail" and "spoiler" doesn't really advance the discussion.

[Small-Axe]

237. Oooh, "revealing phrases." Oh my.

Gimme a break Jim.

Having the Justice Democrats go after any Democrat who doesn't hew to their line and smearing them as "conservatives" sucks. And if you embrace this then it reveals a lot about you.

We Democrats are a liberal party. This isn't the DSA or The Young Turks. We have Republicans that we need to fight and beat.

Yet, now we have to watch our backs and fight rear-guard actions while being attacked from the far-left.

Tulsi Gabbard is opposed by many Democrats for actions she's taken.

The Green party are spoilers. Sorry if you don't like the truth. The idea that we need to turn our party over to spoilers is absurd and it is political blackmail of the worst kind.

[George II]

158. The Democratic Party is different in the midwest or southwest than it is in the northeast...

...or west coast.

This is a country of 330 million people of all races, religions, backgrounds, and local economic conditions.

There is no one "direction" for everyone in the country.

Remember when Tammy Duckworth innocently stated months ago that the politics of New York City are different than the midwest? She got slammed, yet most of the Democratic candidates in the midwest that were primaried by Democrats trying to move the party in a different direction wound up winning their primaries and subsequently their general elections.

[Tom Rinaldo]

166. I pretty much agree with you

This was called in the OP an effort to support "primaries against incumbent Democrats deemed to be ideologically and demographically out of step with their districts.". That most likely is not true of most districts that you speak of, but it may be of some.

My bias in a two party system is to support appropriate primaries as a way of keeping all politicians accountable to their constituents. Those who represent their districts well usually have no problem defeating primary opponents. But either way this is how democracy works. Especially when for all practical purposes any sane voter HAS to support the Democrat in a General Election. Without primaries sane voters never get any realistic choice, if they don't want right wing extremists in power.

[George II]

185. According to Saikat Chakrabart, co-founder of Justice Democrats and Cortez' co-board member....

...and now her Chief of Staff, "We need new leaders, period, we gotta primary folks." That is an exact quote from him.

[Jim Lane]

170. That's no reason to fear primaries.

If some "outside agitator" (that well-established epithet favored by entrenched power structures) supports a primary candidate who's not in step with the district, then that candidate will lose the primary. The Democrat who emerges as the winner will look more conservative by comparison, for having fended off the socialist challenge.

There's no way that an expression of opinion by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will "hijack" a primary, which is one of the silly charges lodged in this thread. She's not trying to override the choice of local electorate. By encouraging more candidates to run, she's trying to expand the range of choices available in each of those diverse districts.

What happens when a progressive woman challenges a more conservative male Democratic incumbent? In NY-14, she wins (Ocasio-Cortez over Crowley). In West Virginia, she loses (Manchin over Swearengin). I'm just not seeing any valid reason to consider this system a problem. The only problem is that primaries will sometimes produce a result you don't like, but you just have to live with that.

[Small-Axe]

213. Meanwhile it just drives up the costs and empties the coffers of incumbent Democrats...

who need to stave off socialist challengers.

I'd like to see energy and dollars going toward defeating Republicans.

[radius777]

124. Bill was a successful governor, his DLC activism

was a side project. Most of his time was spent on his state.

The Dem party had also fallen apart (3 landslide losses to Reagan/Bush) and was in a period of realignment.

The old Dem party centered in rural and small-town America was conservative on social issues and populist/left on economics/trade and foreign policy.

However the new Dem party was/is centered in metropolitan and suburban America, and thus is more liberal on social issues and centrist on economics/trade and foreign policy.

Bill also was a loyal Dem who never attempted to primary out more populist/leftwing Dems, but had a pragmatic philosophy of 'run however the district/area will allow'.

[JHan]

238. Thanks radius I was going to mention that but the convo isn't about him and you're right.

The politics of the early 90's is not the politics of now. It is not 1988. The political metrics then took into account two strong Reagan terms ( whatever one may say about Reagan, his political success cannot be denied)

rest of your points are excellent.

[pwb]

100. All senators and congresspeople represent their districts. So

your saying none of them should talk of national issues outside their districts? Thats a weak argument, all politicians do it last time i watched any news program......

[JHan]

101. No that is not what I said.

do not be disingenuous or introduce strawmen.

This is about primarying Democrats in other districts, not having an opinion about politics in other parts of America one doesn't represent.

[pwb]

103. If they are paid for by big energy or pharmaceutical money why not speak up against them?

I am all for her speaking about campaign finance reform and if a democrat is bought and paid for they should be challenged. I am proud of her, but then again I am from New York.

[JHan]

104. Let's get some things out of the way because the spin y'all are coming with is lol worthy.

- The argument isn't that Cortez cannot have an opinion about climate change or campaign finance, come on now.
- The argument is not that she cannot have opinions about the flavor of politics in areas outside of New York.

The contention here is that she wishes to throw her political capital behind the removal of Democrats she finds unacceptable in districts other than her own.

Since we already have a track record of her doing this: Lacy Clay and Davids, both progressives, color me unimpressed. Is she going to work up a challenge to Tim Ryan? Has she sorted in her mind who her best bet for that is which will keep that district in Dem hands, as much as I can't stand the guy, I'd rather a Dem than a Republican there. is he in her sights? Who she got in mind?

I also think it is bad form to be talking about this now, as I said earlier - this is not the time for factional fights. Go after a Dem in a district less blue and you risk that district going Republican. Not all districts are the same.

Which is why her best bet is influence and working with her colleagues, bridging the gap and networking with people who might not ordinarily agree with her - that's what smart legislators do.

[pwb]

105. She won by taking no corporate money.

She sees that as a big problem with career democrats and so do I. We can't solve climate change when democrats are taking big money from big oil? If she feels strongly about that sort of thing i am with her all the way.
I am sorry but Iwon't be replying any more because i hate kicking threads i disagree with.
Nice talk J I really enjoy your posts.

[JHan]

106. Yes, the DNC fossil reversal rule ..

It's not ideal, but it's far more complex than the narratives put out there - Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Laborers' International Union don't want to be blocked out of donating to the DNC.

And .. we need money.

Hortensis mentioned further up work being done to deal with "money in politics" but really, we are making more noise about stuff like this than our opponents.

My frustration is that I actually want Cortez to do well - she has tremendous capital that can work in her favor. I don't expect her style to be the same as some of the other freshmen to Congress either. I just want us to be smarter about all this, and this doesn't come across as smart to me right now.

I think unnecessary factional fights are the last thing we need right now.

you take care.

[LBM20]

57. We got the blue wave because we fielded moderates who could win red-leaning districts.

[Blue_true]

31. She is right. Anyone that ignores our core principles and sit in the pocket of big money is not on

our side.

[lapucelle]

36. Which Democrats "sit in the pocket of big money" and "ignore the party's core principles"? N/T

[Cha]

201. Exactly, lapucelle. Who's she accusing?

[lapucelle]

207. Mahalo Cha! Enjoy Pink Floyd as you await the apocryphal list of "suspect Democrats".

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11447500

[Demsrule86]

78. I despise Cent and his Justice group...ticket to the minority...aren't these folks tired yet of

losing? We won because we appealed to moderate in the burbs...you want a progressive party? Me too... they need to concentrate on winnings hearts and minds...increase the number of progressives in those areas and not cause us to lose elections by primarying incumbents who can win and replacing them with those who might win a primary but can't win a general.

[Gothmog]

114. I also do not like Cenk and the Justice Democrats

[Demsrule86]

191. She was involved in primarying a sitting senator in Maryland I believe... she might face

a primary if she ticks of longtime Democrats.

[lapucelle]

136. ,,,

[lapucelle]

33. Does that include primarying the Democratic incumbent from NY-14 in 2020? N/T

[comradebillyboy]

38. Justice Democrats are the Tea Party of the left

Let's make that big tent a lot smaller is what I hear form OAC.

[lapucelle]

43. "Ocasio-Cortez backs campaign to primary people like herself"

could be an alternate headline to the Hill story, given the fact that she will be the established politician/ incumbent in 2020.

[JHan]

58. well that's the irony. No one yet has spun this in a way which makes any damn sense

given the track record.

but whatevs. We gotta have more unnecessary bullshit drama I suppose.

[lapucelle]

67. It's going to be a long two years with The Hill stoking their nonsense. N/T

[George II]

142. And Joseph Crowley will STILL the the Queens County Democratic Party Chairman.

[Magoo48]

45. Good, championing moving to the left will balance those who would drag us to the right.

Dems shouldn’t take money from donors who reek of corruption and greed: NRA, Wall Street, arms manufacturers and so on. We battle these people; we don’t collude with them.

[LBM20]

62. No one is dragging us to the right.We must be the party of MIDDLE America too because

not every district is on the far left. It's a big country. Political purity is DEATH.

[Magoo48]

249. Yes,

everyone who takes money from Oil, Pharma, and Wall Street is dragging us to the right.

[ehrnst]

242. Who is "dragging us to the right?" (nt)

[ehrnst]

244. Crickets...

Thought you wouldn't have the courage to actually name names.

[Magoo48]

248. Sorry, had to attend to business.

Every Democrat who is receiving money from Big Oil, Big Pharma, or Wall Street bankers is dragging us to the right. You can’t fight these people while having a pocket full of their money. I’m not going list their names, because they’re easily accessible. I listed some names yesterday in a thread that I was locked out of. Btw, how “right” of you to question my courage. What’s that about?

[betsuni]

255. "I'm not going to list their names, because they're easily accessible."

[ehrnst]

256. Still can't or won't give the names of those you claim are "dragging us to the right."

Or offer any actual evidence that they are actually "dragging us to the right."

Instead, another version of the "google it yourself" evasion.

[ehrnst]

257. OK, I'll play your game. I googled the most progressive house members and their donors

Most progressive House Dems according to Progressive Punch:

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?x=35&y=12&house=house&party=&sort=overall-lifetime&order=down

So why don't you tell us how Ro Khanna (#3 on the Progressive Punch progressive rating) is "dragging us to the right?"

94.44% of funds raised - Large individual donors



https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00026427&cycle=2018&type=C


How about telling us how Katherine Clark (#6 on the Progressive Punch progressive rating) is "dragging us to the right?"

Small Individual Contributions (< $200) $66,086 5.03%
Large Individual Contributions $678,138 51.58%
PAC Contributions $570,628 43.40%



https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00035278&cycle=2018&type=C

[Magoo48]

259. My contention remains

that anyone who receives money from industries which are harmful to our common welfare is impeding their own ability to stand against them. Anyone. Everyone. All of them who take money. That’s my list.

[ehrnst]

261. But you still can't back up your claim about Dems "dragging us to the right"

about any specific Democrat.

Got it.

[betsuni]

246. Talking points:

Democrats have been moving to the Right for the last few decades.
Democrats are beholden to wealthy donors, Wall St., etc.
LOL collude!
Which Senators have not voted against the NRA and arms manufacturers?

[Norbert]

51. Come on Alexandria. Don't go Tea Party on us.

Primarying Dems would be a mistake.

[LBM20]

52. Cortez needs to learn the ropes and focus on the needs of her own district.

[NurseJackie]

54. I'd rather see this kind of energy and effort spent trying to DEFEAT REPUBLICANS instead.

I'd rather see this kind of energy and effort (and money) spent trying to DEFEAT REPUBLICANS instead. Why replace Democrats with Democrats? Wouldn't it be better to replace Republicans with Democrats?

[Me.]

65. I Must Confess I'm Worn Out With Her Already

Today she's doing FB live. I'm beginning to think she's a show-boater and wonder if there's anything more to her.

[brush]

195. That's exactly the idea. Can't understand why that is so efn hard for some to grasp.

[AlexSFCA]

55. she energizes young people and that's important

they need to be driven to the polls during primaries cause there are often other issues on the ballot too.

[LBM20]

59. She needs to focus on her OWN district or they may well toss her out in two years.

[comradebillyboy]

69. Maybe if she energized young people to oppose Republicans

rather than Democrats I'd be more positive of her efforts. I'm really tired of purists.

[Demsrule86]

81. I see no evidence of that.

[jalan48]

56. She's right about this. I'm sure there will be push back from powerful, monied interests.

"All Americans know money in politics is a huge problem, but unfortunately the way that we fix it is by demanding that our incumbents give it up or by running fierce campaigns ourselves," Ocasio-Cortez added. "That's really what we need to do to save this country. That's just what it is."

[LBM20]

61. Moderates largely fueled the blue wave winning seats held by Republicans. She needs to focus on her

own district. I do agree about the influence of money, but that needs to happen across the board, not just with Demorats.

[octoberlib]

118. +1

We had a really progressive Chair in our state , who refused to take corporate donations and he damn near bankrupted the party. We drastically need campaign finance reform but it's got to apply to both parties or we're screwed.

[nini]

70. Not really. The republicans are loving thjs

She's doing exactly what they need _ divide from within.

[empedocles]

77. Fox 5 at 5 said they are loving this. Love it so much they called it 'REPUBLICAN PORN'!

[Fox, Thursday show, 11-15, near the 5:30p point]

[nini]

79. Yep... makes me crazy

Republican porn indeed.

[jalan48]

80. What does wanting to get big money out of our elections have to do with dividing from within?

[nini]

93. It's not quite that simple

She's going after those who are not as pure far left as herself. She's the left's tea party on many levels - she won't get much done by coming out of the gate the way she is.

[jalan48]

94. You could be right. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next two years.

We could well have more AOCs after the 2020 election.

[lapucelle]

206. Here's where her money came from.

https://www.opensecrets.org/races/industries?cycle=2018&id=NY14&spec=N



https://www.opensecrets.org/races/sectors?cycle=2018&id=NY14&spec=N

[George II]

160. It has nothing to do with "monied interests".

[jalan48]

231. Right-that's believable.

[George II]

234. Thanks. Glad you agree....

[eleny]

66. Any member who is still on the fence about climate change ought to be considered for replacement

The episodes of devastation occurring around the world are too serious for us not to be the Party that takes a stand and demands that those who represent us in government firmly believe in climate change. Equivocation can't be an option.

AOC has a lot to learn about working in Congress. But I'm not chiming in to denounce her based on some other action(s) she's taken with which I don't agree. We're going to need some firebrands who sound alarms when it's necessary.

[YessirAtsaFact]

71. The last thing we need is a Democratic liberal tea party wing

This is wrong.

Get majorities of whatever kind of Democrats we can elect in the House and Senate.

Elect a Democratic president and undo some of the Orange Menace's damage.

Don't go on ideological pogroms at this point.

[treestar]

72. Surely she understands

That her district is navy blue and that it is not so simple for other that’s are more sky blue or purplish.

[Voltaire2]

73. Good. By the way that's how she got elected.

[NurseJackie]

74. Better to swap-in Democrats for Republicans (instead of Democrat for Democrat)...

Better to swap-in Democrats for Republicans (instead of Democrat for Democrat)... that makes the most sense. This kind of stuff just feeds into party division and suspicion and distrust.

[Voltaire2]

131. Er no it makes a party a democratic institution

Where representatives have to actually represent their constituents.

[NurseJackie]

140. ...

[Voltaire2]

229. For example, Ocasio-Cortez's primary campaign.

Nothing really wrong with her opponent other than after decades in office he no longer really represented his constituents.

[NurseJackie]

230. %%%%%

[redstatebluegirl]

75. The tea party of the democratic party.

[bitterross]

83. STOP USING RW SOURCES TO TELL US WHAT WE THINK. THEY WANT US TO FIGHT.

She implored people to run for office. She didn't say primary people.

STOP, JUST STOP, REPEATING RIGHT-WING TALKING POINTS MEANT TO CAUSE US TO FIGHT WITH EACHOTHER.

[Power 2 the People]

84. Unafraid

In her remarks to the Justice Democrats, Ocasio-Cortez invited activists considering running for office to take a similar leap in the faith that history would be on their side.

“Know that they will come after you and that that’s OK because at the end of the day, when you are on the right side of that long arc of history that bends toward justice, we will be able to tell our grandchildren that we fought for what’s right,” she said.

[George II]

91. The link is to a different article.

[ismnotwasm]

95. That it does--it's a Politco article

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/17/ocasio-cortez-throws-support-behind-campaign-to-primary-democrats-1000529

[Polybius]

97. Thank God that didn't work in West Virginia

Otherwise we would be seeing a new Republican Senator. I'm grateful for Manchin.

[JCanete]

98. And the primary is exactly where we should be having these fights. In fact, I've seen posters

here say "Welp….we've got manchin now and need to support him...the time to have replaced him would have been in the primary."

That's damn fucking straight...so I don't want to see people telling us why having spirited primaries bringing different ideas to the table is a bad idea, nor why when left-wing democrats back people to the left of the candidate that's bad, but its okay when the main thrust of the party puts its full-throated endorsement behind the blue dog in the race.

[still_one]

107. it isn't the spirited primary or discussion that is the problem, it is after the primary those

Democrats that refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee after the primary is over

[George II]

164. Joe Manchin WAS in a "spirited primary", he wound up winning 69.9% to 30.1%. He was chosen....

....by Democrats in West Virginia, not in San Francisco, Boston, Houston, Vermont, or the South Bronx.

West Virginia Democrats wanted him as their candidate, and West Virginians at large wanted him as their Senator.

To borrow a refrain that we hear often, isn't that democracy?

[JCanete]

173. no...its big money. You know that too. And there were enough voices here at the time suggesting

that primarying him or any sitting democrats at all was folly.

That said, would Manchin win in his state if things were remotely on an even field? Maybe. How would we know. Our politics rarely resembles anything close to that.

[George II]

182. Please stop that "you know that" stuff, it's not true and is offensive. Thanks!

[JCanete]

184. you don't know that? I thought suggesting that would be more offensive. nt

[George II]

189. "Big money" didn't win his primary or his general election. People like to think that....

....because they have issues with "big money", "corporate America", and "Wall Street".

[JCanete]

190. do you know who his donors are? Big Money puts you on the map and easily buries your potential

competitors. YES of course it helped him to win the primary. Whether you think he deserves that position or not, it took people with power and deep pockets thinking so too for him to be where he is.

[JCanete]

193. Also, we have issues iwth those things because they literally buy our government. Please for the

love of all that is truthful, admit that you know corporations don't give money to politicians out of some altruistic vision. If they don't think they're getting a return on that investment, then why would it even be an allowable contribution in accordance with fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders?

and of course people in these industries who benefit the most have the same interest in infusing money into campaigns so that they can get a huge windfall on the other side, or arguably, to protect against a huge loss, say if some rabble-rousing lefty gets in there and starts wanting stricter accountability or higher taxes.

[Gothmog]

115. Does anyone want to predict her committee assignment?

The speaker of the House and the party will be in control of these assignments.

[radius777]

116. AOC, Cenk and others on the populist left

have a grave misconception about the Dem party and its constituents.

Most Dem voters come from metropolitan areas, which are centers of business and trade, and thus most Dem voters are ideologicaly center-leftish 'neoliberal' Clinton/Obama type Dems.

IIRC, AOC's district overwhelmingly went for Hillary vs Bernie ... don't be surprised if AOC herself isn't primaried by someone promising to bring business investment to downtrodden communities.

Keep in mind also that the 'neoliberal' Cuomo/James crushed the populists Nixon/Teachout - especially in the metro areas and diverse communities like AOC's.

[JonLP24]

121. If you want to know why the rich keep getting richer

And the wealth gap widens keep going down that way. They are neoliberal because of a corporate influence not because it is what the voters want. Republican party does it in your face and their voters fall for their propaganda.. Climate change denial is an American phenomenon for example.

[R B Garr]

123. No. California is as liberal as it gets and those vapid talking

points failed. They’ve failed here since 2016. It isn’t what people want. People do want jobs in their communities and being anti/business is not popular. Your whole post is based on implying that everyone is corrupt and it is really getting old.

Vermont doesn’t have all the talking points Justice Democrats push. Why aren’t there protests all over Vermont?

[JonLP24]

129. No I'm not implying many of them are corrupt

Some are influenced by lobbyists much more on the Republican side. Do you agree money in politics is a problem?

Being anti business let's talk about specific policies and their impact. Take the Amazon sweetheart deals AOC criticized.

These articles are by a non partisan economist.

Amazon Subsidies And Sports Stadium Subsidies Are Each Terrible In Their Own Special Way

If you didn’t already get enough links to read from today’s weekly news roundup, and didn’t hear enough of my thoughts on Amazon’s $4 billion payday as it compares to sports subsidies, I’ve elaborated on my thoughts at length in an article that just went up this morning at Deadspin. Some sample takeaways:

Jeff Bezos will be getting more public cash than any single sports venue, but at least he’ll be employing actual full-time workers, so the cost-per-job ratio won’t be as dismal as in sports deals (though it’s still probably pretty bad).
Just like we’ve seen in sports deals, here are tons of hidden costs to the Amazon agreements, from infrastructure slush funds paid for with public tax dollars to federal tax shelters set up by Donald Trump that will cover Amazon’s New York headquarters, even though they were supposed to be for impoverished areas and Long Island City is decidedly not.
As in many sports deals, Amazon’s subsidies will evade most public oversight (in New York, anyway), and were arguably unnecessary at this level given that the company, like sports teams, undoubtedly ended up locating in the market that it wanted to anyway.
Or if you want to skip to the ending: “The Amazon deal is ultimately another step in the legitimization of government by extortion, where the nation’s richest men can withhold ‘job creation’ as a condition of not having to pay taxes, or commute without a helicopter.” But go read the whole thing, it’s way more entertaining than the bullet-point summary above, or at least way more packed with pop-culture references.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2018/11/16/14287/amazon-subsidies-and-sports-stadium-subsidies-are-each-terrible-in-their-own-way/

https://deadspin.com/amazons-ransom-vs-stadium-deals-which-is-worse-1830467603

So when Amazon announced on Tuesday that Jeff Bezos would be building two new headquarters in New York City and the Virginia suburbs of D.C.—and collecting $4 billion in tax breaks plus a pair of helipads as part of the bargain—it set off alarm bells all over. (Nashville will kick in another $100 million to land a smaller Amazon base with the Monty Burns–esque moniker “Operations Center of Excellence.”) Elected officials and residents from Amazon’s targeted New York neighborhood of Long Island City greeted the news with a protest rally, while the New York Post ran a front-page illustration of a moneybag-clutching Bezos above the headline “Queens Ransom.”

The Amazon bidding war has been conducted in a fashion more than a little reminiscent of sports stadium shakedowns: Declare your team (or company) a free agent that is ready to move wherever it likes, then wait for local elected officials to scurry for any much public cash as they can stuff into unmarked briefcases. It’s not quite fair to say that sports team owners taught their non-sports brethren the rules of the extortion game—he first big wave of corporate subsidies came in the 1980s, as car companies and computer chip plants realized that Reagan-era cuts in federal development aid to cities were leading desperate mayors to open their city treasuries to any passing private company. But Bezos’s Amazon sweepstakes, like the one conducted by Elon Musk for a Tesla factory before that, clearly owes a debt of gratitude to the biannual Olympic circus, which in turn learned from the sports team owners who have collectively extracted tens of billions of public dollars for stadiums and arenas in recent decades.

The futility of trying to boost your city’s economy by throwing money at pro sports is well-established, even if it hasn’t always sunk in with elected officials (after all, they’ll be long out of office when the final bill comes due). But does the same calculus hold for other corporate sweetheart deals? After all, many of the arguments that economists point to as reasons why sports subsidies are pointless—local sports spending cannibalizes money that would be spent elsewhere in your city anyway, the prime beneficiaries are a few rich folks who won’t spend much in your local economy, the jobs created are mostly low-wage and part-time—don’t hold true for a corporate headquarters employing as many as 25,000 full-time workers at a projected average salary of $150,000 a year. Is spending billions to land Amazon a better deal? Or just a different breed of boondoggle?

Let’s do a side-by-side comparison:

How much will it cost? While the final numbers are still being calculated, it looks like Amazon will rake in around $3 billion from New York, and up to $1 billion from Virginia. That’s way spendier than any single sports venue in history—the new Yankee Stadium holds the current record at $850 million in state and city costs, with the Atlanta Falcons and Las Vegas Raiders right behind.

https://deadspin.com/amazons-ransom-vs-stadium-deals-which-is-worse-1830467603

The article goes back and forth with sports subsidies (which are bad deals for cities) that both politicians tend to support because fans want their sports teams which is why the NFL shakes down cities for sweetheart deals which is what Amazon did.

[R B Garr]

139. I'm not going to read a bunch of Wiki type excuses

and innuendo, and there’s more to business than limited talking points about Amazon, which are all a big fail when you see that Bernie supports Amazon by using them to sell his books.

Look at the election results. They don’t support your theories.

[JonLP24]

143. He's an economist who knows what he is talking about

It is not wiki type excuses.


Winning or losing has nothing to do with being right.

Yeah there is more corporate welfare besides Amazon.

I prefer Keynesian type economics.

[R B Garr]

147. Making Amazon the focus just shows it's about Bernie,

not “economics”. Trying to put everything “corporations” onto the pinhead of his platform hasn’t worked. “Being right” is meaningless; it’s just an insult to people just like implying everyone is corrupt. That’s why I said that election results clearly show that voters want to win and govern instead of sending meaningless messages.

[melman]

151. 'Being right is meaningless'

[R B Garr]

154. I'm phone typing so I didn't bother with the obvious

that it is just subjective innuendo that is often the focus, never any valid proof. So you may think you are right in insulting people, but it is meaningless.

[JonLP24]

156. There was a long thread where AOC was ripped

For not standing with Cuomo calling her a "problem" for the party when she was actually correct on the issue.

While Google, Facebook, and Twitter all have large offices in NYC, which the New York Times notes were set up without state subsidies, Amazon reportedly needed New Yorkers to chip in to help it build its new office building. The ecommerce giant (cynically) required the 238 cities vying to host its new office to sign nondisclosure agreements, but the Times points out that “cities and states now spend some $90 billion a year in cash and tax incentives to attract companies,” and that’s a lot of money that could go toward things like repairing roads, subways, bridges, and even schools.

Considering that Amazon is hovering around a trillion-dollar market cap, some people are understandably outraged that their tax dollars are being used as the equivalent of a GoFundMe for Amazon.

That includes New York’s newly minted Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who took to Twitter last night to point out that tax breaks will funnel much-needed money away from the city’s crumbling infrastructure.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90266749/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-not-thrilled-about-amazon-coming-to-queens

"Anti business" was brought up so I wanted to get more specific but by me bringing up Amazon was about AOC, not Bernie though I generally agree with him on economic matters.

[R B Garr]

212. LOL, then why doesn't AOC convince Bernie to quit using Amazon?

The hypocrisy is so evident and really gets old.

Cuomo election results are also a good example of the self-serving fallacy of implying everyone is corrupt. Those insults didn’t work. They lost in New York as well as California. This is all about the post you commented on with more diversions from the actual election results that clearly show so-called moderates won the day. That suggests people want to win elections and govern instead of sending messages.

Maybe AOC will spend her time ridding her district of evil corporations instead of insisting incumbent Democrats need to leave office. I also notice Justice Democrats skip over Vermont, as Vermont seems to be exempt from producing their campaign issues.

[JonLP24]

232. The people calling out the Amazon deal

Are correct. That isn't a diversion that is policy.

Democrats: We oppose Kavanaugh Plus 2 woman credibly accuse him of sexual assault (not counting Avenatti undercutting the Democrats)

Manchin votes for Kavanaugh.

Democrats: "I love Joe Manchin."

AOC criticizes the Amazon deal and one economist that is only biased against sports subsidies (take an economics course and you would be to) shows what is wrong with the Amazon deal by comparing it to Sports subsidies but AOC is a problem.

If we're going by election results Trump won the EC right so does that mean so does that suggest people want White Supremacy. It wouldn't surprise me.

'Both parties are mired in white supremacy,' says ex-candidate in Denver facing threats over tweet

Luby: "Do you hate white people?"

Rao: "No."

Luby: "Have you given up on white people?"

Rao: "I hate white supremacy. I do not hate white people."

She said she's given up on trying to convince white people — including those in both political parties — to stop white supremacy.

"White people have to dismantle it," Rao said. "Brown and black people cannot. It's not even a possibility. We've been trying forever."

She said she doesn't worry about her safety over the growing number of hateful messages, but worries about her children. She's leaving Denver on Tuesday for "a few weeks" and won't say where she's going.

"You can't escape white supremacy. I don't think moving somewhere permanently is going to change anything," Rao said. "But in this moment right now, I feel like we've gotten enough bad stuff our way that I don't feel safe for my kids right now."

Among the messages appearing on social media is one from a man who said, in part, "YOU are numb-minded racist, a leftist and anti-American."

Via email, someone said, in part, "You are an ungrateful racist. You and your family have a great life in the United States. Whites do not apologize for inventing the Western culture from which you now benefit. We fought and suffered for our great land - your family did not ... You make me sick and I'm a registered Democrat."

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/investigations/-both-parties-are-mired-in-white-supremacy-says-ex-candidate-in-denver-facing-threats-over-tweet

[R B Garr]

233. Like I said, the obsession over Amazon is about Bernie, or you

say it’s really AOC. It’s not about economics.

If you look at the election results, Cuomo won over Nixon who called him corrupt. This is just more spam along the same lines. It’s interesting that Justice Democrats doesn’t hold Vermont to their own purity standards.

[radius777]

155. Cleveland not signing Lebron will bankrupt them

that city is going down w/o him, should've just paid him what he wanted (iirc, 150 million) would've been a good investment.

IOW, sometimes there is a benefit to giving a team/player or big business incentives to move to your area.

But I do also get the concerns you raise, which are valid.

What it boils down to is a balance between Wall Street and Main Street that both Bill and Obama tried to achieve.

Progressives aim should be to convince centrists and establishment liberals of their concerns - not throw tantrums or attempt to divide the party in a very precarious time.

Note, that Hillary did run on a fairly progressive platform - she heard many of the concerns of progressives - many of whom simply did not want to give her a chance and voted for Stein or stayed home.

[JonLP24]

168. If your city's economy depends on a millionaire then your city has problems

More proof sports subsidies are a bad idea but then comes the idea of opportunity cost. You can spend that money on something else. Maybe something cheaper or a better deal that is fair to all parties.

I can only speak for myself. I agree there are supporters that make Bernie Sanders look bad especially the ones that complain about "identity politics" but there are plenty of centrists that make their candidates look bad. I consider anti racism a progressive as well as the right thing to do which is in Democratic Socialists of America platform who unlike the Greens work within the Democratic Party because they are realists. Plus the Greens run awful candidates though I liked McKinney (didn't vote for her).

I think Hillary Clinton would have been more liberal than Bill Clinton. If anything that WSJ op-ed is true I would like it if Hillary Clinton repositioned herself as a liberal firebrand for 2020. She would easily crush candidates.

I voted for her in the general election so I have no problem "uniting" but far too often people seem to want to cut off the progressive wing. Why can't we embrace both wings?

[radius777]

204. Gillum seemed to bring the wings together,

as he was a Hillary delegate but also appealed to progressives, and had a sunny outlook.

He wasn't correct for Florida, there you must run a more centrist candidate, but overall he may've hit on the correct formula.

Neither Hillary nor Bernie should run in 2020, need new faces and more optimism to bring people together.

I like Klobuchar - she's a centrist w/populist appeal - also she has a good personality - will help us lockdown the Midwest, won't sacrafice a Senate seat (MN has a Dem governor) as we would with Brown or Warren.

[R B Garr]

125. Exactly. Looks like the turnout proves that voters want to win,

not settle for sending messages. Win and govern, not never/ending griping about Democrats which plays into the GOPs hands.

[JCanete]

179. What misconsception, and how do you think political opinions are formed anyway? It takes a

counter-narrative out in the world to actually challenge conventional thinking. And conventional thinking on some of these issues is easily challenged. At one point, not so long ago, you may even remember, most Americans weren't in favor of medicare-for-all. Thanks to advocates, and people being given information, that has changed.

[NastyRiffraff]

126. AOC is even seated yet and I'm sick of her

Honestly, she needs to learn to learn. She really doesn't know it all. I know she's young, but she's not a child; she should know better than this. Since she doesn't, I'm afraid she's going to have to learn the very hard way, and it won't be a good look.

She is not the one who determines who is "out of step with their districts." That would be the residents of the districts. AOC doesn't seem to know or care that her brand of politics simply won't work in some districts, or states. Someone, preferably a Democratic Congresswoman, should take her in hand and teach her some basic truths. Or she's doomed to be irrelevant.

[Stellar]

247. AOC says since she doesn't take PAC money like the others, she only speaks for her constituents

...that voted for her and gave their small donor dollars that elected her.
She went door to door in her district and beat out the powerful Joe Crowley. She won that seat by doing what she did.

[Gothmog]

127. If AOCdoes not work with her fellow House members, she will not be effective

I wonder is she will be able to push any major piece of legislation through. Without cooperation from her fellow house members she will not get anything through congress

[still_one]

128. Hmmmm, she will be an incumbent in 2020. What comes around goes around perhaps

[libdem4life]

133. In the sales business, they were called Prima Donnas.

Those just coming in who garnered this reputation, like AOC, got taken down soundly. Those who had actually earned being top of the heap by actual sales, weren't called that. They were called "Those who made the most commissions"...winners.

I hope she grows up fast. I've seen too many get crushed...by their own hubris. Some are smart enough to get it, however, before they flame out.

The question about the committee assignment will truly be interesting. She'll be put in her place rather quickly, I'd imagine.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

137. I can think of one Dem who will probably be primaried in 2020: AOC. nt

[sharedvalues]

138. PLEASE STOP QUOTING THE HILL- rightwing owner

“They don’t practice journalism at The Hill”.

Link to tweet

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

141. Wouldn't it make more sense to try to flip (R) seats to (D)?

As opposed to eating your own.

[Bettie]

159. I'm amazed every day to hear the vitriol spewed toward this young woman

yes, I get it, she defeated an older white man and people are angry about that.

[nini]

169. That's not it

good try though

[Stinky The Clown]

176. I'm so sorry that you simply don't get it.

[Hekate]

188. His age and gender are not the issue, Bettie, and "vitriol" is not being spewed her way by us...

If she continues on this track and encourages the ignorant to primary Democrats, we could lose the House in 2 years and she will be in a world of hurt. She needs to master her new job, and learn that Congress isn't an activist rally, it's the place where laws are made.

[sheshe2]

196. Thank you.

[Cha]

211. Good Advice, Hekate!

[Cha]

210. No, you don't get it at all.

[Bettie]

214. People seem very angry that she won that primary

and the complaints about her started the day she won.

Every day there are at least two or three threads trashing her.

She's young, female, and liberal. Which is the one you object to?

And as for those who say congress isn't the place for activism...activism is advocating for change.

Why should Democrats not advocate for change? Are we so happy with the status quo? j

Note: I do think Pelosi should be leader this time around, but we NEED to make room for a new generation of people in congress as well. You want millennials to vote? Listen to their voices instead of telling them to sit down and shut up.

[Cha]

215. No, that's not it.. you just go around putting

words in members' mouths. Read the thread and you will be able to get a clue why they're objecting to AOC primarying Dems.

[Bettie]

216. Right...as if I haven't read the MANY

many, many threads about what an awful thing it is that she's young and energized and ready to take on the world.

Whatever makes you feel better about attacking her. Continually.

[Cha]

217. AOC campaigned against Sharice Davids, Gretchen

Whitmer, and Lacy Clay in their prmaries. That didn't work out so well for her.

[Bettie]

218. IN the primaries

primaries are for the purpose of choosing candidates. Why is it so terrible that she was invited by other candidates with similar views to hers to campaign with them? The fact that they didn't win in primaries is simply what happens in primaries, someone wins, someone doesn't.

So many around here also seem to hate that primaries are a thing.

Perhaps those with that view should petition the DNC to do away with choice and just put people on the ballot, maybe lobbyists could choose! Then, there wouldn't be any messy voting involved until the general. I'm sure it would generate a lot of enthusiasm!

[Cha]

219. Yes, AOC LOST Against Excellent Progressive DEMS.

[Bettie]

221. She wasn't running against them

Look, I'm just tired of seeing thread after thread every single day attacking this young woman for the sin of winning a seat in an election. The way people go on about her, you'd think they would have been happier to see a republican win.

That's what it comes down to. You can say whatever you want about it, but the complaints began the second she won the primary and have not changed appreciably since that day. They haven't even abated, they've gotten worse and more strident.

She's supposed to sit down and shut up.

She won't. She actually believes that she can change things.

I wish I believed that there could be change beyond who is in charge of the status quo, but I like seeing someone young enough to have optimism that our government still could work FOR the people more than it does for the corporate persons and the very, very wealthy.

I like seeing a person of modest means in congress rather than the usual crowd of the rich and the VERY rich.

We're not going to agree on this.

I do wonder why the whole "support Democrats" thing doesn't apply to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

[Cha]

224. I like that AOC is getting called out

when others disagree with her. just like she calls out Dems.. she can be called out, too.

[Hekate]

227. Spot on, Cha. That criticism thing works both ways. nt

[Cha]

228. Thank YOU!

Hekate

[Bettie]

254. I was unaware that the rules had changed

to "support Democrats, except AOC".

[Hekate]

258. First, you may be unclear on the parameters. Second, when a Dem wants to primary other Dems...

...like her friend and mentor (who is popular here, but not a Dem, let us recall) and announces that riight after we just got the House back -- well, yes, she most certainly is subject to criticism.

[uponit7771]

250. LOL, yaw working overtime

[Eric J in MN]

161. Nobody is 'demographically out of step.'

It’s fine to have blacks representing majority-white districts and whites representing majority-black districts.

[liberal N proud]

177. Democrats would do better to have candidates in ALL races, leaving no republican unchallenged

Challenge Democrats in elections when we don't even challenge republicans? Please!

This past election there were 5 spots on the ballot where there was no Democratic candidate.

[violetpastille]

199. I wish AOC would bring her sharp outfits, and her Instagram Live to WA-03 and help us defeat JBH.

The thing is, she ACTUALLY could do it. She could really flip this district.

All we needed this last election was a little National light thrown on our House race. And she does get a lot of light shone on her, whatever she does.

[Historic NY]

180. Wonder how 2020 is going to work for her ...

she's out on attack of the rest of the class.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

200. Posters here used to be all for ousting "third-way" Dems...

...DLCers, ConservaDems, or whatever name one chooses to call them.

What changed?

[Cha]

209. AOC & BS campaigned against Sharice Davids,

Gretchen Whitmer, and Lacy Clay in their primaries.. are you calling them your litany of insults?

[oberliner]

205. Makes perfect sense

It's what she did.

[NurseJackie]

220. Kinda like when someone wanted Obama to be primaried...

... no words.

[Gothmog]

223. I remembered that person very well

[Cha]

226. Oh yeah.. BS wanted President Obama Primaried

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2018, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

in 2012.. how'd that work out for him?

Jackie!

[disillusioned73]

240. Are ppl really going to get upset..

when all ppl are doing is following Prez Obama's advice????

“If you’re disappointed by your elected officials, grab a clipboard, get some signatures, and run for office yourself” Barack Obama

[Honeycombe8]

260. With all due respect,those were normal times. I doubt he'd say that right now.

When togetherness among the Democrats is about the only thing that can save our democracy.

He would likely say what he just said about Pelosi:

"Nancy is not always the best on a cable show or with a quick soundbite or what have you," Obama said. "But her skill, tenacity, toughness, vision, is remarkable. Her stamina, her ability to see around corners, her ability to stand her ground and do hard things and to suffer unpopularity to get the right thing done, I think, stands up against any person that I've observed or worked directly with in Washington during my lifetime."

Obama said instead of "performance art," what's most important are the "nuts and bolts" of governance -- "the blocking and tackling involved in actually getting things across the finish line."

"And my experience has been that Nancy Pelosi knows how to do that, and she was an extraordinary partner for me throughout my presidency," Obama said.

He's speaking of experience and skill. Two things that freshmen Congressmen won't have. These are not normal times.

[samnsara]

251. who died and made her boss?