I don't think she cares about polling either way. She specifically ran for office to make big waves. That is what she is doing. She has zero intention of curbing her radicalism in order to fit in. Her stated intention is to do the exact opposite of that. And that attitude will likely continue to serve her well in the long run. I will be surprised if we're not still hearing her name 20 and 30 years from now, whatever her future wins and losses may be.
If her future wins are non-existent, you won't hear her name in any positive light, or likely even any negative one.
What are the "big waves" you see her making, out of curiosity?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Okay... but I have to say it: What if someone truly thinks that someone they're talking with is buying into a false narrative? This obviously is going to be true at least some of the time. If you treat that idea as though it's dismissive or lazy or whatever, isn't that equally dismissive to that person, who just might be right? I realize that anyone, whether they are actually buying in or not, is going to be offended by the suggestion... But that doesn't mean it might not still be true, and it's kind of a point impossible not to make at times. Sometimes something is hugely explained by the fact that people are buying into a false narrative. It shouldn't be taboo to suggest it, whether they happen to be right or wrong. Anyone accused of it can obviously deny it (not that they'll know if it's true or not) and feel annoyed that they've been accused of it, but I don't think it's a crazy or lazy suggestion to be making even if it's not true.
it's lazy at the beginning of a discussion, which I spelled out in my response to it ("no evidence about me following a narrative"). I agree that if you go back and forth with someone for some time, it can obviously become apparent that they are only parroting what they have heard through bias-confirming sources, etc. But I typed, what, two sentences, and that's the response I get? Honestly, it's typical of that poster. Dismiss someone's opinion as "bullshit" without really explaining why or having any reason to, then going all passive aggressive by avoiding the ensuing conversation ("haha, moving on"). I only engaged them because they engaged me first. I really should know better.,
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I'm not buying into any fucking narrative. I followed her on twitter for a while, but got tired of her. I read about her comments to the media, and she's snarky as fuck and I think it comes across as unprofessional. I don't give a shit if "that's how the other side does it". I don't agree with it when anyone does it, regardless of affiliation.
she reminds me of friends of mine when they first got into law school. all of a sudden they proclaimed themselves the knowers of all information and they were going to save the world and everyone else was a fucking idiot. eventually they came around and went back to being normal people, but fuck if they weren't pompous assholes for a while.
I don't think you're her target audience TBH. I think she is playing the long game, and is focused on people her age. Millennials and Gen Z and beyond. I don't think she expects to get most of her support from Gen X (although she has mine - I love her. I think government needs more young radicals now, hell at this point I'd even welcome anarchists, lol. I don't think we desperately need more "professionalism" in the context you're saying. But I would say I'm in a minority about this point within my own generation).
But also, I disagree that her attitude is pompous or arrogant. I think that is plain old genuine passion, excitement, drive, confidence, etc etc. It saddens me a little when people see that from a young woman and decide on negative labels like that. I think they are misinterpreting her.
passion and pompousness are not mutually exclusive. I totally agree she's passionate, as I said she seems to have ton of energy. I just think she comes off as arrogant.
and even if we disagreed on that, my take on her has zero to do with her being a "young woman". i'd say the same thing if it were beto or pete acting like that.
I know they aren't mutually exclusive. I'm saying that I don't think that she is pompous and arrogant, and that I think those who think she is are misreading her, mainly as a result of how her passion and excitement and intensity (and faith and hope) is expressed. It's sad to me.
follow her on twitter if you are on it. you'll see what I mean. she comes off as arrogant and dismissive if you don't agree with her.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I don't think she cares about polling either way. She specifically ran for office to make big waves. That is what she is doing. She has zero intention of curbing her radicalism in order to fit in. Her stated intention is to do the exact opposite of that. And that attitude will likely continue to serve her well in the long run. I will be surprised if we're not still hearing her name 20 and 30 years from now, whatever her future wins and losses may be.
If her future wins are non-existent, you won't hear her name in any positive light, or likely even any negative one.
What are the "big waves" you see her making, out of curiosity?
I have no idea. It's just a feeling. I think she has the "it factor", if you will, and that generally causes someone to stick around for the long haul (in her case, that will be in politics or in social justice), barring anything seriously horrible happening to her (which is possible - I think politics is going to become a more dangerous game in the coming years). I don't think she'll necessarily have to win elections to be in the spotlight. There are some very famous activists who aren't in office. But I think she is very capable of winning more of those too, if she wants to.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I’d rather have AOC in Congress less than a full term, inexperienced, young, brash, pompous, polarizing, etc. than Lindsey fucking Graham, who after decades on the hill and as a former Air Force lawyer, publicly encourages criminals to ignore senate subpoenas. Imagine what that POS is doing in private? But Oooooo, AOC clapped back at Joe Biden, ooooooooo.
I’d rather have AOC in Congress less than a full term, inexperienced, young, brash, pompous, polarizing, etc. than Lindsey fucking Graham, who after decades on the hill and as a former Air Force lawyer, publicly encourages criminals to ignore senate subpoenas. Imagine what that POS is doing in private? But Oooooo, AOC clapped back at Joe Biden, ooooooooo.
We love eating our own.
No shit, eh? It's starting to look like the definition of insanity.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I’d rather have AOC in Congress less than a full term, inexperienced, young, brash, pompous, polarizing, etc. than Lindsey fucking Graham, who after decades on the hill and as a former Air Force lawyer, publicly encourages criminals to ignore senate subpoenas. Imagine what that POS is doing in private? But Oooooo, AOC clapped back at Joe Biden, ooooooooo.
We love eating our own.
we're allowed to criticize "our own", and it has zero to do (in my case, anyway) with her thing with Biden.
And yes, i'd agree I'd much prefer her over many of the high profile republicans, including LG.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
(FTR, I didn't mean you are starting to look like the definition of insanity HFD, lol. I was talking big picture. Big picture I think Halifax is 100% right, and the US left really is eating its own (and the Canadian left is starting to do the same), just like it did in 2016. It's insanity because 2016 didn't teach them a damned thing, apparently, and to keep repeating the same thing with bad results... that's the insane part. I do think this has a lot to do with the oft-mentioned purity politics. ).
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Meh, both parties "eat their own" when it comes primary time. remember all the mud slinging during the republican primary? and it was way harsher than anything democrats do/say to each other, in my opinion.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Meh, both parties "eat their own" when it comes primary time. remember all the mud slinging during the republican primary? and it was way harsher than anything democrats do/say to each other, in my opinion.
But this isn't at all restricted to primary time. I don't think we're looking at a "meh" situation at all. It's a clear and present danger IMHO.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I’d rather have AOC in Congress less than a full term, inexperienced, young, brash, pompous, polarizing, etc. than Lindsey fucking Graham, who after decades on the hill and as a former Air Force lawyer, publicly encourages criminals to ignore senate subpoenas. Imagine what that POS is doing in private? But Oooooo, AOC clapped back at Joe Biden, ooooooooo.
We love eating our own.
we're allowed to criticize "our own", and it has zero to do (in my case, anyway) with her thing with Biden.
And yes, i'd agree I'd much prefer her over many of the high profile republicans, including LG.
But is it constructive or relevant criticism? Maybe those old dem stalwarts would do well to draw her in, listen to her concerns and suggest ways to work together to accomplish her agenda rather than bitch about her tact, or lack thereof? Maybe she does what she does because as a minority female she’s used to being dismissed and unheard and nothing changes?
AOC who? I forget about her and then this thread gets bumped so I check in and it’s much ado about a Twitter spat. Welcome to junior high. But the question is, is she representing her constituents and will she face a primary and get re-elected?
Name recognition and her name in the headlines will get her re-elected.
She won't accomplish anything but beat her chest come election time.
Reading up on things, her local constituents seem fairly pleased so far. She’s apparently quite involved on a day to day basis, attends a lot of community events, and is responsive to grass-roots organizations, though some of the other politicians say she’s not as responsive to them. Whether that’s a good or bad thing, I’m not sure, since I don’t know their motives. Maybe she’ll get re-elected for other reasons than chest-beating.
Most of her constituents say she blew it with the Amazon thing.
I’d rather have AOC in Congress less than a full term, inexperienced, young, brash, pompous, polarizing, etc. than Lindsey fucking Graham, who after decades on the hill and as a former Air Force lawyer, publicly encourages criminals to ignore senate subpoenas. Imagine what that POS is doing in private? But Oooooo, AOC clapped back at Joe Biden, ooooooooo.
We love eating our own.
we're allowed to criticize "our own", and it has zero to do (in my case, anyway) with her thing with Biden.
And yes, i'd agree I'd much prefer her over many of the high profile republicans, including LG.
But is it constructive or relevant criticism? Maybe those old dem stalwarts would do well to draw her in, listen to her concerns and suggest ways to work together to accomplish her agenda rather than bitch about her tact, or lack thereof? Maybe she does what she does because as a minority female she’s used to being dismissed and unheard and nothing changes?
Your success is not linked with where you come from, but what you can accomplish. I believe it's extremely constructive criticism if someone being constructively criticized would care to listen - and I believe that when preaching to "those old dem stalwarts", my same question would be - but is it constructive or relevant criticism?
This is a matter of opinion at this point so take it with a grain of salt, but suppose that you were to superimpose the population of America onto this lovely diagram of the political spectrum. Now, picture where in the political spectrum AOC's positions will yield her votes and respect. How wide of a range is that? What percentage of the population is within that subset of the spectrum?
Next, pretend that AOC were to take a principled yet pragmatic stance where she showed openness to compromise recognizing that the direction is right, even if the progress is insufficient for the end goal. How wide of a range is her spectrum now? What would you imagine the impact to the extreme left wing cohort would be in that situation?
My theory is that a willingness to compromise will expose AOC to a further-centered cohort of population voters currently inaccessible to her, as well a further-centered cohort of political voters currently inaccessible to her, with negligible lack of support from what I suspect to be a smaller cohort than we think (which is likely since extremes are typically the loudest, not the largest).
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
AOC who? I forget about her and then this thread gets bumped so I check in and it’s much ado about a Twitter spat. Welcome to junior high. But the question is, is she representing her constituents and will she face a primary and get re-elected?
Name recognition and her name in the headlines will get her re-elected.
She won't accomplish anything but beat her chest come election time.
Reading up on things, her local constituents seem fairly pleased so far. She’s apparently quite involved on a day to day basis, attends a lot of community events, and is responsive to grass-roots organizations, though some of the other politicians say she’s not as responsive to them. Whether that’s a good or bad thing, I’m not sure, since I don’t know their motives. Maybe she’ll get re-elected for other reasons than chest-beating.
Most of her constituents say she blew it with the Amazon thing.
AOC who? I forget about her and then this thread gets bumped so I check in and it’s much ado about a Twitter spat. Welcome to junior high. But the question is, is she representing her constituents and will she face a primary and get re-elected?
Name recognition and her name in the headlines will get her re-elected.
She won't accomplish anything but beat her chest come election time.
Reading up on things, her local constituents seem fairly pleased so far. She’s apparently quite involved on a day to day basis, attends a lot of community events, and is responsive to grass-roots organizations, though some of the other politicians say she’s not as responsive to them. Whether that’s a good or bad thing, I’m not sure, since I don’t know their motives. Maybe she’ll get re-elected for other reasons than chest-beating.
Most of her constituents say she blew it with the Amazon thing.
AOC who? I forget about her and then this thread gets bumped so I check in and it’s much ado about a Twitter spat. Welcome to junior high. But the question is, is she representing her constituents and will she face a primary and get re-elected?
Name recognition and her name in the headlines will get her re-elected.
She won't accomplish anything but beat her chest come election time.
Reading up on things, her local constituents seem fairly pleased so far. She’s apparently quite involved on a day to day basis, attends a lot of community events, and is responsive to grass-roots organizations, though some of the other politicians say she’s not as responsive to them. Whether that’s a good or bad thing, I’m not sure, since I don’t know their motives. Maybe she’ll get re-elected for other reasons than chest-beating.
Most of her constituents say she blew it with the Amazon thing.
Okay... but I have to say it: What if someone truly thinks that someone they're talking with is buying into a false narrative? This obviously is going to be true at least some of the time. If you treat that idea as though it's dismissive or lazy or whatever, isn't that equally dismissive to that person, who just might be right? I realize that anyone, whether they are actually buying in or not, is going to be offended by the suggestion... But that doesn't mean it might not still be true, and it's kind of a point impossible not to make at times. Sometimes something is hugely explained by the fact that people are buying into a false narrative. It shouldn't be taboo to suggest it, whether they happen to be right or wrong. Anyone accused of it can obviously deny it (not that they'll know if it's true or not) and feel annoyed that they've been accused of it, but I don't think it's a crazy or lazy suggestion to be making even if it's not true.
it's lazy at the beginning of a discussion, which I spelled out in my response to it ("no evidence about me following a narrative"). I agree that if you go back and forth with someone for some time, it can obviously become apparent that they are only parroting what they have heard through bias-confirming sources, etc. But I typed, what, two sentences, and that's the response I get? Honestly, it's typical of that poster. Dismiss someone's opinion as "bullshit" without really explaining why or having any reason to, then going all passive aggressive by avoiding the ensuing conversation ("haha, moving on"). I only engaged them because they engaged me first. I really should know better.,
Just can't let it go can you.
And for the record, it was you who engaged me. As usual you can't get simple facts straight.
AOC who? I forget about her and then this thread gets bumped so I check in and it’s much ado about a Twitter spat. Welcome to junior high. But the question is, is she representing her constituents and will she face a primary and get re-elected?
Name recognition and her name in the headlines will get her re-elected.
She won't accomplish anything but beat her chest come election time.
Reading up on things, her local constituents seem fairly pleased so far. She’s apparently quite involved on a day to day basis, attends a lot of community events, and is responsive to grass-roots organizations, though some of the other politicians say she’s not as responsive to them. Whether that’s a good or bad thing, I’m not sure, since I don’t know their motives. Maybe she’ll get re-elected for other reasons than chest-beating.
Most of her constituents say she blew it with the Amazon thing.
So Sienna poll and Quinnac poll... All these polls. I guess we can pick the ones we like to construct our arguments, lol.
So, if the majority of her constituents approve of what she’s doing, how does that support your argument?
In March they hated her. Supports my argument...
In April 52% supports her. I guess that is a majority? Half? I was actually shocked it was that high.
Why are you using national polls? Is she running for president?
I was more curious to see the polling from her district where you say they thought she blew the Amazon deal (which as proven before she didn't). Can you do that Google search for me too?
AOC who? I forget about her and then this thread gets bumped so I check in and it’s much ado about a Twitter spat. Welcome to junior high. But the question is, is she representing her constituents and will she face a primary and get re-elected?
Name recognition and her name in the headlines will get her re-elected.
She won't accomplish anything but beat her chest come election time.
Reading up on things, her local constituents seem fairly pleased so far. She’s apparently quite involved on a day to day basis, attends a lot of community events, and is responsive to grass-roots organizations, though some of the other politicians say she’s not as responsive to them. Whether that’s a good or bad thing, I’m not sure, since I don’t know their motives. Maybe she’ll get re-elected for other reasons than chest-beating.
Most of her constituents say she blew it with the Amazon thing.
So Sienna poll and Quinnac poll... All these polls. I guess we can pick the ones we like to construct our arguments, lol.
So, if the majority of her constituents approve of what she’s doing, how does that support your argument?
In March they hated her. Supports my argument...
In April 52% supports her. I guess that is a majority? Half? I was actually shocked it was that high.
Why are you using national polls? Is she running for president?
I was more curious to see the polling from her district where you say they thought she blew the Amazon deal (which as proven before she didn't). Can you do that Google search for me too?
AOC who? I forget about her and then this thread gets bumped so I check in and it’s much ado about a Twitter spat. Welcome to junior high. But the question is, is she representing her constituents and will she face a primary and get re-elected?
Name recognition and her name in the headlines will get her re-elected.
She won't accomplish anything but beat her chest come election time.
Reading up on things, her local constituents seem fairly pleased so far. She’s apparently quite involved on a day to day basis, attends a lot of community events, and is responsive to grass-roots organizations, though some of the other politicians say she’s not as responsive to them. Whether that’s a good or bad thing, I’m not sure, since I don’t know their motives. Maybe she’ll get re-elected for other reasons than chest-beating.
Most of her constituents say she blew it with the Amazon thing.
So Sienna poll and Quinnac poll... All these polls. I guess we can pick the ones we like to construct our arguments, lol.
So, if the majority of her constituents approve of what she’s doing, how does that support your argument?
In March they hated her. Supports my argument...
In April 52% supports her. I guess that is a majority? Half? I was actually shocked it was that high.
Why are you using national polls? Is she running for president?
I was more curious to see the polling from her district where you say they thought she blew the Amazon deal (which as proven before she didn't). Can you do that Google search for me too?
OK first. These are local poll numbers. Says it right there in the one I posted "However, while constituents in the 14th district mainly approve of Ocasio-Cortez’s performance, the poll found they aren’t very happy that Amazon earlier this year scrapped plans to build new headquarters in Long Island City — a project that the progressive lawmaker helped scuttle by mounting an aggressive advocacy push."
2nd, I know she had nothing to do with losing amazon but her constituents are upset about it... Look above.
She was right about the Amazon thing IMHO. I know it hurts now, but not nearly as much as it would have down the road a ways, when none of her constituents could afford rent and none of their children had a hope in hell of staying in the neighborhood because of housing prices.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I haven't read up much on AOC hate - but I have a feeling you can draw a straight line from "not liking AOC" to other shitty views.
It's just like the voices you hear about Greta Thunberg (atleast in Sweden).
"Oh, you think that a young girl like Greta should shut up about climate and 'focus on school instead'?... oh, and you also just happen to hate anyone not white and can't understand why politicians want to you drive your car less. How swell"
Just a feeling.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Okay... but I have to say it: What if someone truly thinks that someone they're talking with is buying into a false narrative? This obviously is going to be true at least some of the time. If you treat that idea as though it's dismissive or lazy or whatever, isn't that equally dismissive to that person, who just might be right? I realize that anyone, whether they are actually buying in or not, is going to be offended by the suggestion... But that doesn't mean it might not still be true, and it's kind of a point impossible not to make at times. Sometimes something is hugely explained by the fact that people are buying into a false narrative. It shouldn't be taboo to suggest it, whether they happen to be right or wrong. Anyone accused of it can obviously deny it (not that they'll know if it's true or not) and feel annoyed that they've been accused of it, but I don't think it's a crazy or lazy suggestion to be making even if it's not true.
it's lazy at the beginning of a discussion, which I spelled out in my response to it ("no evidence about me following a narrative"). I agree that if you go back and forth with someone for some time, it can obviously become apparent that they are only parroting what they have heard through bias-confirming sources, etc. But I typed, what, two sentences, and that's the response I get? Honestly, it's typical of that poster. Dismiss someone's opinion as "bullshit" without really explaining why or having any reason to, then going all passive aggressive by avoiding the ensuing conversation ("haha, moving on"). I only engaged them because they engaged me first. I really should know better.,
Just can't let it go can you.
And for the record, it was you who engaged me. As usual you can't get simple facts straight.
you're right, i did engage you first. my mistake. as usual, you have to make immature insulting comments like you did right there.
can't let it go? pj soul commented on it, so i responded.
problem?
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
AOC who? I forget about her and then this thread gets bumped so I check in and it’s much ado about a Twitter spat. Welcome to junior high. But the question is, is she representing her constituents and will she face a primary and get re-elected?
Name recognition and her name in the headlines will get her re-elected.
She won't accomplish anything but beat her chest come election time.
Reading up on things, her local constituents seem fairly pleased so far. She’s apparently quite involved on a day to day basis, attends a lot of community events, and is responsive to grass-roots organizations, though some of the other politicians say she’s not as responsive to them. Whether that’s a good or bad thing, I’m not sure, since I don’t know their motives. Maybe she’ll get re-elected for other reasons than chest-beating.
Most of her constituents say she blew it with the Amazon thing.
So Sienna poll and Quinnac poll... All these polls. I guess we can pick the ones we like to construct our arguments, lol.
So, if the majority of her constituents approve of what she’s doing, how does that support your argument?
In March they hated her. Supports my argument...
In April 52% supports her. I guess that is a majority? Half? I was actually shocked it was that high.
Why are you using national polls? Is she running for president?
I was more curious to see the polling from her district where you say they thought she blew the Amazon deal (which as proven before she didn't). Can you do that Google search for me too?
OK first. These are local poll numbers. Says it right there in the one I posted "However, while constituents in the 14th district mainly approve of Ocasio-Cortez’s performance, the poll found they aren’t very happy that Amazon earlier this year scrapped plans to build new headquarters in Long Island City — a project that the progressive lawmaker helped scuttle by mounting an aggressive advocacy push."
2nd, I know she had nothing to do with losing amazon but her constituents are upset about it... Look above.
Read the article Hoss.
Just to check "Hoss" I read the CNN article you posted (again, and I don't know why I did). Still don't see what you quoted there.
I’d rather have AOC in Congress less than a full term, inexperienced, young, brash, pompous, polarizing, etc. than Lindsey fucking Graham, who after decades on the hill and as a former Air Force lawyer, publicly encourages criminals to ignore senate subpoenas. Imagine what that POS is doing in private? But Oooooo, AOC clapped back at Joe Biden, ooooooooo.
She was right about the Amazon thing IMHO. I know it hurts now, but not nearly as much as it would have down the road a ways, when none of her constituents could afford rent and none of their children had a hope in hell of staying in the neighborhood because of housing prices.
Detroit has cheap and available housing. I think you can buy a whole block for $10K
I’d rather have AOC in Congress less than a full term, inexperienced, young, brash, pompous, polarizing, etc. than Lindsey fucking Graham, who after decades on the hill and as a former Air Force lawyer, publicly encourages criminals to ignore senate subpoenas. Imagine what that POS is doing in private? But Oooooo, AOC clapped back at Joe Biden, ooooooooo.
We love eating our own.
we're allowed to criticize "our own", and it has zero to do (in my case, anyway) with her thing with Biden.
And yes, i'd agree I'd much prefer her over many of the high profile republicans, including LG.
But is it constructive or relevant criticism? Maybe those old dem stalwarts would do well to draw her in, listen to her concerns and suggest ways to work together to accomplish her agenda rather than bitch about her tact, or lack thereof? Maybe she does what she does because as a minority female she’s used to being dismissed and unheard and nothing changes?
Your success is not linked with where you come from, but what you can accomplish. I believe it's extremely constructive criticism if someone being constructively criticized would care to listen - and I believe that when preaching to "those old dem stalwarts", my same question would be - but is it constructive or relevant criticism?
This is a matter of opinion at this point so take it with a grain of salt, but suppose that you were to superimpose the population of America onto this lovely diagram of the political spectrum. Now, picture where in the political spectrum AOC's positions will yield her votes and respect. How wide of a range is that? What percentage of the population is within that subset of the spectrum?
Next, pretend that AOC were to take a principled yet pragmatic stance where she showed openness to compromise recognizing that the direction is right, even if the progress is insufficient for the end goal. How wide of a range is her spectrum now? What would you imagine the impact to the extreme left wing cohort would be in that situation?
My theory is that a willingness to compromise will expose AOC to a further-centered cohort of population voters currently inaccessible to her, as well a further-centered cohort of political voters currently inaccessible to her, with negligible lack of support from what I suspect to be a smaller cohort than we think (which is likely since extremes are typically the loudest, not the largest).
Disagree with the bolded part and the diagram to illustrate your point. First, "where you come from" and more imporatntly, your race, ethnicity and sex, sexual orientation, certainly play a roll in your success/accomplishments, of which you're judged, fairly or not, whether by your family, friends, colleagues or society. If AOC weren't a congresswoman and were a lawyer, doctor, accountant, architect, etc., she'd be earning $0.80 for every dollar her male colleagues might earn, on average. Any black kid that made it out of Cabrini Green in Chicago and entered the professional work force isn't going to be as "successful," however you define it, to a white kid that comes out of Chevy Chase, Maryland, even if they both go to Harvard or Yale. Chances are, "your" success is partly determined by your race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation and where you come from. Take two white kids, one from Southie, one from Westchester, NY. Both go to Harvard, graduate with the same GPA in business. Both apply for jobs on Wall Street. Which kid has more doors open for them? Which kid is viewed "more like us?" "Where you come from directly impacts your ability to be "successful." It shouldn't be that way, but it is. Doesn't mean that others can't be successful, because they can but they have fewer or different opportunities to be so.
How do you know AOC hasn't listened? Maybe she has and she's being told the same things she and many of her constiuents have been told their whole lives, wait your turn, slow down, take a number. Well, maybe she's tired of waiting for that change that never comes? The day we're posting about AOC and her FU to the establishment, it was 84 degress in the Artic Circle and CO2 levels reached 455 ppm for the first time in 3 million years. Wait your turn, you sassy malassie! Why do you think she was "preaching" to those old dem stalwarts? The Green New Deal is not an actionable plan but a call to arms, to begin the debate, and whether you agree or not, actionable and debateable policy goals. The point is to do "something," and "something" never happens. Not one repub voted for Obamacare and 9 years later, after attempt after attempt to repeal, gut it, burn it to the ground, they still haven't come up with a plan to replace it. The definition of "do nothing." Meanwhile, Team Trump Treason is promoting fossil fuels and damning wind turbines. And the dems sit on their hands. And nothing changes.
The "lovely diagram of political spectrum," is flawed. The opposite of "conservatism" is "liberalism," not "socialism." Further, social change should sit on both sides of "status quo," right? Both liberals and conservatives want social change over the status quo, whether its abortion, school choice, welfare, healthcare, tax policy, etc. And why is the left "radical" and the right is "reactionary?" One connotes a departure from established norms while the other connotes protecting established norms, to me anyway. Like access to success, there's a built in bias. Now, superimpose AOC's tact, beliefs, etc over the diagram. What do you get? The same the other side would get with their right version of AOC, pick up more of the center, at the expense of your base or lose more lefties/righties to gain more centrists. That said, AOC is not running nationwide. She's appealing to her base and even if its uppity, sassy, disrespectful, too much, too soon, overeager, tactless, her policies would benefit more people in the center, even if they're further left than the centrists, than the alternative. And don't confuse her votes with her rhetoric. Chances are, she'll vote party over principle when it means the most more often than not and she ultimately has to answer to her constiuents, not Faux News or a nationwide electorate. Time will tell.
Comments
What are the "big waves" you see her making, out of curiosity?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
We love eating our own.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
And yes, i'd agree I'd much prefer her over many of the high profile republicans, including LG.
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.amny.com/amp/news/politics/aoc-approval-rating-1.29633086
This is a matter of opinion at this point so take it with a grain of salt, but suppose that you were to superimpose the population of America onto this lovely diagram of the political spectrum. Now, picture where in the political spectrum AOC's positions will yield her votes and respect. How wide of a range is that? What percentage of the population is within that subset of the spectrum?
Next, pretend that AOC were to take a principled yet pragmatic stance where she showed openness to compromise recognizing that the direction is right, even if the progress is insufficient for the end goal. How wide of a range is her spectrum now? What would you imagine the impact to the extreme left wing cohort would be in that situation?
My theory is that a willingness to compromise will expose AOC to a further-centered cohort of population voters currently inaccessible to her, as well a further-centered cohort of political voters currently inaccessible to her, with negligible lack of support from what I suspect to be a smaller cohort than we think (which is likely since extremes are typically the loudest, not the largest).
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
So Sienna poll and Quinnac poll... All these polls. I guess we can pick the ones we like to construct our arguments, lol.
In April 52% supports her. I guess that is a majority? Half? I was actually shocked it was that high.
And for the record, it was you who engaged me. As usual you can't get simple facts straight.
I was more curious to see the polling from her district where you say they thought she blew the Amazon deal (which as proven before she didn't). Can you do that Google search for me too?
2nd, I know she had nothing to do with losing amazon but her constituents are upset about it... Look above.
Read the article Hoss.
It's just like the voices you hear about Greta Thunberg (atleast in Sweden).
"Oh, you think that a young girl like Greta should shut up about climate and 'focus on school instead'?... oh, and you also just happen to hate anyone not white and can't understand why politicians want to you drive your car less. How swell"
Just a feeling.
can't let it go? pj soul commented on it, so i responded.
problem?
-EV 8/14/93
How do you know AOC hasn't listened? Maybe she has and she's being told the same things she and many of her constiuents have been told their whole lives, wait your turn, slow down, take a number. Well, maybe she's tired of waiting for that change that never comes? The day we're posting about AOC and her FU to the establishment, it was 84 degress in the Artic Circle and CO2 levels reached 455 ppm for the first time in 3 million years. Wait your turn, you sassy malassie! Why do you think she was "preaching" to those old dem stalwarts? The Green New Deal is not an actionable plan but a call to arms, to begin the debate, and whether you agree or not, actionable and debateable policy goals. The point is to do "something," and "something" never happens. Not one repub voted for Obamacare and 9 years later, after attempt after attempt to repeal, gut it, burn it to the ground, they still haven't come up with a plan to replace it. The definition of "do nothing." Meanwhile, Team Trump Treason is promoting fossil fuels and damning wind turbines. And the dems sit on their hands. And nothing changes.
The "lovely diagram of political spectrum," is flawed. The opposite of "conservatism" is "liberalism," not "socialism." Further, social change should sit on both sides of "status quo," right? Both liberals and conservatives want social change over the status quo, whether its abortion, school choice, welfare, healthcare, tax policy, etc. And why is the left "radical" and the right is "reactionary?" One connotes a departure from established norms while the other connotes protecting established norms, to me anyway. Like access to success, there's a built in bias. Now, superimpose AOC's tact, beliefs, etc over the diagram. What do you get? The same the other side would get with their right version of AOC, pick up more of the center, at the expense of your base or lose more lefties/righties to gain more centrists. That said, AOC is not running nationwide. She's appealing to her base and even if its uppity, sassy, disrespectful, too much, too soon, overeager, tactless, her policies would benefit more people in the center, even if they're further left than the centrists, than the alternative. And don't confuse her votes with her rhetoric. Chances are, she'll vote party over principle when it means the most more often than not and she ultimately has to answer to her constiuents, not Faux News or a nationwide electorate. Time will tell.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"Women taking up space and having opinions - it makes me uncomfortable!"