General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOcasio-Cortez Not Sure She Wants to Stay In Politics
https://politicalwire.com/2020/11/07/ocasio-cortez-not-sure-she-wants-to-stay-in-politics/Ocasio-Cortez Not Sure She Wants to Stay In Politics
November 7, 2020 at 11:17 pm EST By Taegan Goddard
Said Ocasio-Cortez: The last two years have been pretty hostile. Externally, weve been winning. Externally, theres been a ton of support, but internally, its been extremely hostile to anything that even smells progressive.
ck4829
(35,034 posts)Some people don't want to make waves, but we have to. The 2016 election should have taught us that politics is not something you just "sit back and enjoy the show" in respect to, it is something you HAVE to participate in for it to have any significance worth having.
We will need progressivism and action, not complacency, or we will end up with Trump or worse in 2024.
Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)message spread. But this is a center left country and we have the US Senate, and Presidential elections to consider...right now we can't run progressives in purple or red states. In fact, I am not convinced AOC could win a New York Senate seat yet. New York City is progressive but not New York State. She may want something else...can't blame her. She is very smart and maybe doesn't want the Hillary treatment.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Capital-P Progressives are a dissident faction who dishonestly claim they're The Only True Progressives. Yet, as we know from 2016, that faction is willing to throw progressivism itself to the Republican wolves to hurt the Democratic Party.
CK, America is centrist overall, but that means progressives range from the moderate conservatives who believe in progressive government, just smaller, through moderate liberals, through strong liberals, and over to the farther left, but only those who really do.
It's not a radical label for posturers to use to manipulate people with, but a real thing that real progressives have used for the past 100 years to create great wellbeing among Americans. And that is under attack by the Republican Party and, I'm sorry to say, occasionally the anti-Democratic left.
Ocasio has spent the last 2 years among over 200 fellow progressive Democrats, who've been passing mountains of progressive, badly needed legislation. That she either very bizarrely doesn't know it or knows it but lies through her teeth that it hasn't been happening both say something very bad.
Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)we must have a big tent. It was moderates that gave us the house and we lost some this year sadly.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)when protecting it doesn't further their big class-warfare goals, they're also also anti-democracy. Just like their counterparts on the right, majorities don't support their too-extreme agenda, and they know to win they must overthrow the will of the majority.
They need persuade people to become so unhappy with democracy and the people they themselves elect that they won't vote to protect what they inherited.
And so what Ocasio said here. Typical undermining of trust and belief.
Me.
(35,454 posts)"Ocasio has spent the last 2 years among over 200 fellow progressive Democrats, who've been passing mountains of progressive, badly needed legislation. That she either very bizarrely doesn't know it or knows it but lies through her teeth that it hasn't been happening both say something very bad"
betsuni
(25,367 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Maybe she needs to have lunch with Madame Senator/Secretary Clinton on how she managed to keep on serving the people and making progressive change a reality despite decades of "hostile treatment."
TwilightZone
(25,423 posts)As I said in another thread, she should take a look at what happened in 2018.
She might also want to look at what happened at the top of the ticket in 2020. Seems it did OK strategy-wise.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)the top of the ticket in 2020
Boogiemack
(1,406 posts)work for Wall Street?? Surely "hard to keep them down on the farm after they see Parieee"
It happens to the best of them.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)She is a national target of hate, one of the biggest ones in fact. Yes it is easy for her to win reelection, that doesn't make the road she has to walk easy. And like a great many other elected Democratic officials, her concerns extend beyond the boundaries of her district
marlakay
(11,424 posts)For the amount of death threats she gets.
She is probably thinking seriously if she wants to be fighting a uphill battle when more of the party is moderate over the whole country.
Boogiemack
(1,406 posts)I am ok with her leaving politics or staying. I wish she would stay but it has been widely known that some progressives who are Bernie disciples have wanted to utterly destroy the Democratic party just as Trump had destroyed the GOP.
We can either lose some things and fight the battle another day, or lose everything and not be able to fight again.
robbob
(3,522 posts)News to me. Wish it were so.
Vivienne235729
(3,376 posts)qdouble
(891 posts)She was working a regular 9 to 5 not too long ago. Its not hard to imagine that certain aspects of politics can be disheartening.
question everything
(47,423 posts)In the aftermath of their unexpected losses, Democrats argued that the party needs to come to terms with a bigger problem: Republicans have successfully cast the most vulnerable Democrats as socialists and tied them to liberal ideas, including Medicare-for-all, the Green New Deal and cutting police budgets.
Democrats messaging is terrible; it doesnt resonate, Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, said in an interview. When [voters] see the far left that gets all the news media attention, they get scared. Theyre very afraid that this will become a supernanny state, and their ability to do things on their own is going to be taken away.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-democrats-pelosi-election/2020/11/05/1ddae5ca-1f6e-11eb-90dd-abd0f7086a91_story.html
=====
We are already at a disadvantage for 2022 when the President's party usually loses seats.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)lapucelle
(18,185 posts)Dream Girl
(5,111 posts)This country aint the Bronx where to quote Claims Mckaskill a glass of water with a D next to its name could get elected.
BlueNProud
(1,048 posts)I expect she'll join the view or something. Make some money. She deserves it.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)I like that she talks about raising up struggling working people, but there are more efficient ways of doing that than advocating moonshot policy that is going to turn a lot of people off.
qdouble
(891 posts)America as a whole is to the right of many other first world countries, its not like shes talking about pure fantasies.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)can be accomplished, not what I want because the two face vastly different landscapes.
qdouble
(891 posts)A lot of things progressives are asking for other countries already have. Its not like were talking about putting a man on the moon (even though that was accomplished before universal healthcare in America).
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)behind the effort. To get universal healthcare and climate intervention on a massive scale, we have to overcome the almost half of Americans who dont see the problem like we do and are more reliable voters than we are ( they vote in every race, even county dog catcher).
Other than stating what the problems are, what CONCRETE, ACHIEVABLE potential solutions do you propose? Europe has better healthcare because the continent was decimated by WWII and had to start societies from virtual scratch, we only had that possibility after the Civil War, for part of the country.
Europe has not made progress on Climate Change, other than staying in the Paris Accords while Trump foolishly took us out of them. The continent suffers droughts and fires and severe weather events just like we do, at this time. The question that I have for you is other than stating what the problem is, WHAT potential solutions that you can give that are achievable?
qdouble
(891 posts)Most people that Ive met or known who dont vote, dont vote because they dont think its going to change anything... or candidates are not talking about issues they care about. America has a very low participation rate compared to other countries.
Progressives are way more of a reliable voting block than cross-over conservatives. This current election had the highest voter participation rate in over a century. If you give people a reason to vote, more will show up.
If you ignore people who want to see real change just to hope you can get some Republican support, then I dont know why people are shocked that so many people decide to sit home most elections.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)As of the last report that I looked at, Joe Biden had just over 4 million more votes than Trump, with record turnout. Trump has almost 7 million more votes than he had in 2016, so a lot of the record turnout apparently went to him. Joe Biden has about 6 million more votes that Hillary had in 2016, so it appears that Trump gained more from the record turnout than Joe Biden did.
You and people that push the argument that you just did completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of Americans are moderates. I am to the left of center considerably, BUT I understand that when we push policies that moderates are put off by, we lose elections big. We would have totally lost this election, even against Trump if Joe Biden hadnt steadfastly distanced himself from idiotic ideals like defund the police, or a whole hearted embrace of a poorly defined concept like the Green New Deal. I believe that if the spectrum that AOC and Senator Sanders are in want to attract a large, elections winning coalition for their concepts, they need to provide numerical heft, the dollars and cents, arguments to their proposals that show how much they cost and the expected returns and how long those returns take to payback expenditures. People can wax on about change until they are blue in the face, but if an elections winning number of people dont buy into those arguments, we get set back and end up having to recover ground that we had already won at one time.
qdouble
(891 posts)it appears that Trump gained more from the record turnout than Joe Biden did.
No, all the data I've seen about the subject clearly states that new voters (13% of the votes, went to Joe Biden by 34%). This is despite Joe Biden not really bringing in a new audience like someone like Bernie would...but rather the anti-Trump sentiment.
You and people that push the argument that you just did completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of Americans are moderates.
Being "moderate" presupposes that progressive polices are to the extreme left, when they are not. If you poll people on a lot of things that progressives want to see done, close to 50% or more than 50% of the population wants those things. So progressives are moderate.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)believers in progressive government across the nation cheer and cry in relief.
Yet this. Still. After nearly 2 years among over 200 progressive legislators eagerly passing progressive legislation they're dying to get past McConnell. That they can't is 2016's fault.
With her talent at talking, similar to Sanders, I'd hoped she'd mature into a competent legislator, who at least accepts that government must serve many interests and beliefs, not just hers. But this suggests she's one of those wired to be unable to accept that and work with other representatives to make good things happen.
Like Sanders, who's said that serving in congress is a complete waste of time. He notably was also claiming that for all the colleagues he self-exiled from, but one good glance at his nearly empty 30-year record shows it is genuinely true for him. And for such obvious reason.
I'm completely disgusted at this behavior and just hope she means it.
PatSeg
(47,234 posts)and rhetoric to bring about positive change. Some people are more cut out to be activists than they are to actually govern. Activism is important and often does help to bring about change, but governing takes time, patience, and compromise. Also don't burn down the foundations that made your seat in congress possible. Going after really good Democrats who were fighting the good fight years ago shows immaturity, inexperience, and a lack of historical perspective.
You know, I can say all this because I was young once too. I was full of passion and ideals, but had little understanding of how government actually works and of course, not a whole lot of patience.
You would think that this would be a time of great rejoicing for all Democrats everywhere, but there are still some who just can't stop denigrating members of their own party.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)youthful mistakes. We all needed that. It's that she is now a mature woman and that from her, now, this statement is shocking.
Even with total immersion among passionately committed progressive colleagues, she's not growing in understanding and wisdom. Or honesty.
She talked like this when she was still with dissident radicals on the outside, imagining their intractably blind and dishonest opposition to the ideals and wishes of many millions of Democrats resulted from higher principles only they were capable of.
PatSeg
(47,234 posts)are part of life and growth. The only thing is that when I was young and in a new environment or job, I was quiet and respectful in the beginning, because I was very aware of my ignorance and inexperience. Like most newbies, I watched and listened as I got my feet wet, not wanting to appear foolish or stupid. Most people I've known do the same. The few who don't, get off to a really bad start and often fall flat on their face.
And you know, if that new job was in congress, I would be very humbled and awestruck in the early days. You know, the biggest turnoff for me was that instead of being eager and ready to fight republican policies and obstruction, so many new people talked first and foremost about primarying Democrats, as if Democrats were the problem. For me, that wasn't a great first impression.
Now someone who has served less than two years in congress is telling seasoned Democrats how to run campaigns and win elections. Now that is some chutzpah.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)thinking who so pithily explained that a difference between how it manifested on the left and right was that RW extremists hate "everyone else" while LW extremists hate "themselves." I keep repeating it because it explains so much that we see, including everyone's experiences of the "guy at the party" who starts ranting angrily about American imperialism when someone makes the mistake of mentioning a friend in Guatemala or Kuwait.
And, of course, your own "very aware of my ignorance and inexperience." Me too and any sensible, rational person. But that's not a problem for those who know they are the only ones who are not dreadfully ignorant and wrong and the only ones capable of saving us all, or their own tribe, whichever.
Link to tweet
I suspect she sincerely believes that hundreds of her colleagues in congress, including all our party leaders, are all too stupid, and of course corrupt, to allow her to "help" them.
PatSeg
(47,234 posts)Wow, I don't know what to call that. Arrogance? Ignorance? Probably both. Maybe, if we stop blaming DEMOCRATS, we could get to work on the many problems we face. Clearly, someone is living in a bubble and a lot of the media attention may have gone to her head. I remember when she was insulted because Joe didn't call her and that was after she had made disparaging comments about him.
RW extremists hate "everyone else" while LW extremists hate "themselves."
Sounds about right.
Response to Hortensis (Reply #169)
CatLady78 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)simply because it's still reciting facts before sending while lies have sped around the planet twice and embedded in vulnerable minds.
Take the term, "defund the police." No one who doesn't work in government had ever heard the term before. It's technical bureaucratese that someone thoughtlessly used in public and was immediately grabbed by enemies and reinterpreted as the centerpiece of a massive lie campaign. We probably wouldn't need to include our feet to count all the angry idiots -- in the entire nation -- who wanted to turn 911 into a disconnected number. And their parents probably set those all straight in quick order.
But one useful thing is that claiming Democrats support shutting down police departments is a sure identifier of a dishonest antagonist. Take names whenever and wherever.
Our big social safety net programs are, of course, all capitalism based and are not socialized even slightly.
Our only big socialized program is the VA, and that's because it was created out of our military institutions, starting during the Civil War. All we can do is know that and tell those who've swallowed the lies, right?
My big thought is that there's no magic competence we can develop that would overcome the reality that lies are a more immediately powerful tool than truth. If there was we'd have done it. But truth is more powerful over time and keeps winning. Just look back over the past turbulent three decades. In spite of huge, extremely well funded and organized attacks on truth and progress, we continue to advance, at slowed and irregular rates with periods of frightening reverse; but overall, even in this period truth, responsibility and decency prevailed and we've continued to advance. And they continue to lose.
...the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. MLK
Response to Hortensis (Reply #173)
CatLady78 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)WhiskeyGrinder
(22,304 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,128 posts)still_one
(92,058 posts)that smells progressive, ( which I disagree with her characterization of what I assume she is referring to the Democratic Party as a whole), assuming the article is accurate, it implies she doesnt have the stamina to fight for what she believes
It is hard for me to believe that she is naive to the hard ball environment involved in politics based on her various actions since she entered the political arena
The Democratic Party has never been monolithic, and it involves working through disagreements and compromise. It is not either my way or nothing
comradebillyboy
(10,128 posts)Lincoln Project and "centrist" Democrats but is offended when people push back at her. She apparently wants to lead a party she only has contempt for. She might try coalition building instead of divisive purity testing if she want to get anything done.
still_one
(92,058 posts)BannonsLiver
(16,284 posts)All of what you described is part of the deal. If one doesnt like that or is not comfortable with it then maybe it is time to find another way to make a difference.
Cha
(296,732 posts)betsuni
(25,367 posts)Celerity
(43,057 posts)sheshe2
(83,625 posts)Sounds like mommy mommy, mikie started it so I hit him back.
We are better than this and we are not children.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)she sees compromise as unacceptable, so doing that is hard for her. Senator Sanders seem to be similar. I dont disagree that the end state they espouse isnt where we should be headed, but I do have serious reservations about the tactics they believe would work. Americans tend to be resistant to change fairly broadly, if change is set upon them in big doses, they will start to favor those that say change is bad and life 60 years ago was better.
still_one
(92,058 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)activism and organizing than politics where administrivia and working in teams is much bigger part of the job description.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)She should have lunch with Speaker Pelosi and Secretary Clinton and get some advice about how to deal with hostile treatment.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 8, 2020, 10:46 PM - Edit history (1)
After her first six months she was ready to pack it in.
Buckeyeblue
(5,499 posts)Being in Politics for most should be temporary. I realize our current president elect has been in politics most of his life. And that knowledge will help us recover.
But for the most part, I prefer term limits and caps on serving.
SlogginThroughIt
(1,977 posts)It only serves special interests and big money politics even more.
liskddksil
(2,753 posts)Caliman73
(11,721 posts)Uber and Lyft spent over $100 million dollars on an initiative in California to keep drivers as independent contractors instead of as employees with benefits. The opposition spent maybe 10 million. Why would they spend that much money if they weren't getting back much much more?
Term limits will do nothing except lose institutional knowledge. Getting money out of politics is a more needed solution than limiting how long a person can serve in office.
Make them run a fair election where it is about policy, performance, and debate rather than how much money you can throw in advertising.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and every election we can change the people who hold the offices. So if we want the same people in the office, we should have that right.
Buckeyeblue
(5,499 posts)There may be some very talented people who are blocked because the seat hasn't changed hands in 20 years.
SlogginThroughIt
(1,977 posts)The only thing beholding a politician is their job. If they do not have to keep their job then they have an expiration date. As it is now if people dont want to keep a politician they vote them out. Why would we want to punish our own good leaders by removing them after x amount of time because we are afraid that we cannot reach another politicians supporters.
This is more of taking away the peoples voice and frankly guarantees more money in politics.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)It pisses me off that great leaders like Obama are forced to leave office for no other reason than the simple-minded managed to impose their throw the bums out mindless nonsense on the office of e President after FDR ate their lunch time after time.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)then perhaps thats an indication that the voters in that constituency prefer to keep that candidate. Why deny those voters the ability to continue to choose that incumbent if that is the person by whom they wish to be represented?
And the recent failure of several incredibly well-funded Democratic challengers shows that money, while important, is not necessarily decisive.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Politics is a unique skillset, and I prefer to be represented by someone who has, or can, develop and perfect that skillset over time. I also prefer to have the freedom to choose a representative as many times as I want, to re-elect them for as long as they choose to serve and as long as I am happy with their service.
The notion of term limits is inherently undemocratic and smacks of know-nothingism. The only term limits required for any politician at any level are elections. Beyond that youve removed my ability to freely vote for my leadership.
Buckeyeblue
(5,499 posts)And they start raising money as soon as they are elected. But it only works if all states do it.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Money, and the raising and spending thereof, is an issue entirely separate from term limits. It IS an issue, just an unconnected issue.
Also, incumbent.
Hekate
(90,518 posts)My state, California, instituted term limits for all politicians elected to serve within California. It has been imo a disaster.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)They dont go anywhere, they just shuffle around to different offices because we still want them around. Better to keep them doing the job we hired them for in the first place.
JI7
(89,237 posts)blue on many of those issues that were on the ballot.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)in politics if she should chose to stay in it. However, she does need to mature a bit and realize that everyone is not always going to agree with you 100% and others see things differently. Conversely she does face an extraordinary amount of hostility from the right and even among some Democrats which is unfortunate.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)One of her first actions after the election was to point out that very progressive candidates in very progressive districts all won, while moderate candidates lost. What she seemed to have failed to acknowledge is that the moderate candidates were running in much, much more hostile districts and a lot of them like Lucy McBath and Abigail Spanberger won.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)But to be fair, she didnt initiate. She was responding to Spanberger.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)But Spanberger made a private complaint among democrats, AOC chose to go public with her response to that. I believe that is a key difference between the two, Spanberger appears to be willing to sit and work out differences within the party, without going public with Tweets.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)And while Spanberger may not have indented for her remarks to go public, they did. In fact during the CNN interview Jake Tapper played recordings of Spanbergers comments.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Could Spanberger done things differently? Yes, she could have made a private call to AOC to sit her complaints and stayed cool during the meeting. But again, there is a difference, in my mind, between a comment that a person didnt intend to have become public and a public Tweet that basically attacks some democrats that lost races.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)But I dont think either Spanberger or AOC attacked anyone by name.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)I didnt see that one and what did she say about them?
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)the one in South Carolina that lost, there could have been a couple others. In the same Tweet, she listed the progressives that won in very progressive districts.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)I would like to see what it says.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)You can find it yourself, I feel no need to.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)But none had the won/lost table that AOC supposedly Tweeted.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Let me try to find that. Thanks.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)of legislation or how the favored the concept and the result for them in the election. The table listen people by name. The policy was either Medicare for All or the Green New Deal, one of the two.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)the original tweet, my mistake, so I apologize for that. I dont disagree with her point, but I dont think that she acknowledges that those people are in much tougher districts than the one she is in.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Celerity
(43,057 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)One of the reasons I push back so hard on criticisms of our older lions who have stayed in the game and didn't give up because it got hard. The ones who are still around stuck it out and put in the work. They deserve respect, not scorn.
lapucelle
(18,185 posts)... follow the money.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)MLK needed LBJ and vice verca in order to get legislation into being. Neither could or should have been both politician and activist, because the expectations of those jobs are different.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)He has a few high profile meetings with LBJ, but the real work was done by others. Not a knock against Dr. King. His value, voice and importance in the movement was tremendous and he played a huge role in drawing attention to the news for social justice. But he wasn't very active - and wasn't expected to be because that wasn't his role - in getting civil rights bills through Congress.
The person most responsible was a great and brilliant man to whom history, sadly, has paid little heed: Clarence Mitchell.
Known as the "101st Senator" and "The Lion in the Lobby," Mitchell was the NAACP's lobbyist. He was strategic and legislative genius and fierce advocate and it was Mitchell who worked the Hill and, with LBJ, got the 1957, 1960, and 1964 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the 1968 Fair Housing Act, and other major legislation through Congress.
It's a shame he's gotten so little attention while Dr. King is credited with the work he did. But he was a great man. This country owe him much.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)legislators that Civil rights legislation was necessary.
MLK did what he did best, which was organize and show the support for justice, which allowed LBJ to do what he did best, getting justice codified.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But the protests in the streets were just one part of a very sophisticated effort comprised of many parts to get the legislation passed. It wasn't the case that Dr. King took to the streets and then LBJ had what he needed to get the bills passed.
What actually happened was that a broad base of civil rights leadership strategized together to figure out where the pressure points needed to be pushed to get the bills passed. They knew that, among other things, they needed to give LBJ the public support he needed to make it easier for him to lean on Congress. Public protest was one of the tactics that could lead to that goal, so MLK did that, but that wasn't the only tactic and he wasn't the only one who employed it. There were lots of protests across the country that were organized by many other individuals and groups, not just Dr. King and SCLC. But those marches weren't enough by themselves and if marches were the only thing the movement did, the bills would have died. They needed strength and savvy on the Hill to get those bills through.
Clarence Mitchell worked hand-in-hand with LBJ and key senators and congressmen to draft, shape and whip the bills and get the votes they needed to get them passed. LBJ didn't even do most of it - he stepped in and out as needed, pressuring the people that Clarence Mitchell and his people on the Hill told him needed to be pushed and would respond to pressure from LBJ. Mitchell used other means to convince others who might not be susceptible to pressure from LBJ. That was a very complex legislative operation and Dr. King wasn't involved in that.
Yes, Dr. King was instrumental its success. But he didn't do it alone and he wasn't even the leading player in the effort. It's really unfortunate that history treats him as if he was THE person in this fight and has ignored not only the people but also the brilliant strategy that made it happen. That leaves too many people thinking that Dr. King just rallied a lot of people to march and that made LBJ force Congress to pass civil rights bills. It's bad history and makes it seem that the movement was more about marches than strategy.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)There is much I need to learn about this.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)"Lion in the Lobby: Clarence Mitchell, Jr.'s Struggle for the Passage of Civil Rights Laws" by Denton Watson
https://www.amazon.com/Lion-Lobby-Clarence-Mitchell-Struggle/dp/0761864504
There's so much civil rights history that has been whitewashed in popular culture. Like Dr. King being both over-hyped and diminished - portrayed as a milquetoast kumbaya figure when he was actually a fierce badass while being credited as THE ONLY civil rights leader of any import when he was just one of many.
For example, I know several of the surviving civil rights lions of the time who were furious at how the movie Selma made it seem as if Dr. King had almost single-handedly negotiated the Voting Rights Act - and that it falsely portrayed LBJ as reluctant to fight for it until Dr. King persuaded him - when, as I said, he actually had very little to do with getting it passed.
betsuni
(25,367 posts)Autumn
(44,962 posts)RandiFan1290
(6,221 posts)Reader Rabbit
(2,624 posts)Its hard to fight a war on two fronts.
NickB79
(19,219 posts)So many moderate Dems saying it's too aggressive, who clearly don't realize how close to climatic and ecological collapse we are, assuming we haven't already gone over the cliff.
jalan48
(13,836 posts)Gothmog
(144,876 posts)The Green New Deal and MFA were very effective attack lines. We had 7 seats in Texas that we could have picked up. The only ad that the GOP ran in my district was about Medicare for All would double taxes for everyone.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)lapucelle
(18,185 posts)will win seats everywhere.
We lost state assembly seats in NYS and failed to pick up Peter King's congressional seat in NY 2. We had a great candidate and high hopes.
The local Republican ads tied the Democratic candidates and incumbents (even Max Rose) to "socialist" policies and defunding the police.
Local candidates don't need their constituency 'splained to them.
Gothmog
(144,876 posts)Again, the MFA ads were very effective because they use real cost estmates for these progam and the fact that taxes would have to go up a great deal to pay for these program.s
lapucelle
(18,185 posts)is problematic at best.
LeftInTX
(25,084 posts)However, I'm sure it was an attack ad in oil country
CD - 23 is a big oil production district
(Gina Ortiz Jones v Tony Gonzales.)
There was a constant attack that she supported sex reassignment surgery...It was a constant drone.....But I kinda don't think that is why she lost.
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)Was the transphobic attack ad against Jones. It made me want to punch the TV every time it was on.
I also saw lots of ads attacking Hegar calling her a pawn of Peloci and Socialist.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)things that she says she wants. I doubt that ANY democrat disagrees with the end state that she wants, plenty, including lots of progressives disagree with the path that she insists will get us to that end state. It doesnt help her cause that she has frequently thrown very public punches at democrats who are not in the same part of the progressive spectrum that she is in.
Autumn
(44,962 posts)seen any discussions on them. Not discussions that will slow down the destruction we face, discussions that will reverse the course. What you say she wants are things that must be done. Healthcare is in a crises, that system is broken. Climate change IS HERE. Punches should be thrown back, they get thrown at progressives and the Left all the time. Come's a time when you realized you only have 2 cheeks to turn maybe she's at that point . Also maybe point me out to when House leadership officially reprimanded Rep. Ted Yoho called AOC a fucking bitch in the House? I can't seem to remember.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)I dont disagree about needing to do something. What AOC and Senator Sanders are advocating on healthcare is a whole overhaul, akin to stripping a car down and rebuilding it. Yet that ignore the fact that it took decades to even get the ACA. So the legitimate question for you is why do you think the American public will jump for a massive overhaul when the cost/benefit analysis for doing that change has been poorly done, in the best estimate of the justification work? On climate change, millions of American families depend economically on the fossil fuel industry, those people are not going to launch themselves on a path when what will happen to the living style they know isnt answered with a solid degree of clarity. We can say that clean energy jobs will fill the void, but how long will it take to get to the critical mass of those jobs to match what people already have? I am not advocating doing nothing, what I am advocating is doing things in a way that there are no big setbacks once we are on the path to a better future state. Every time a Trump or Bush or Reagan get elected because the American public perceived us as moving ahead too fast, we suffer massive setbacks that have us building from the zero point again.
Autumn
(44,962 posts)or people and the planet die. That discussion seem to be missing while politicians are busy punching the progressives and the Left because they are trying to wake people up about it. There is no time to move slow
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)have said electorally that it is ok if nothing is done. What do we do with those people? Kill them as we implement policies that we think will work? They certainly are not going to go away otherwise, of move very fast to the urgency that we see. We have people refusing to wear face coverings, in the face of compelling evidence that face coverings work, yet we are supposed to get people to wholesale buy into changes that will eliminate the livelihoods that they know now? One of the unfortunate realities is that we will most likely end up with mitigation changes that will slow but not eliminate the problem, and a large part of the public and some politicians will claim that is enough.
You asked that I layout how to address the problems of climate change and healthcare access and quality. Why dont you detail your solution that can be implemented, other than saying that they are problems that need a solution now, I know and accept the need to address the problems as fast as possible.
Autumn
(44,962 posts)Maybe Bloomberg can spend some of his millions on Democrats talking about the devastation those people face instead of the fantasy of turning the country blue.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)a rich guy step forward and throw money at it? What can you do? What are your list of potential solutions that are achievable?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)qdouble
(891 posts)Cant expect progressives to be there on Election Day but yell at them the day after.
Dagstead Bumwood
(3,594 posts)Gothmog
(144,876 posts)I will not open any NYT articles but I found this description of this interview to be interesting
Link to tweet
The Bronx native said the Democratic party has been hostile to progressive causes, like Medicare for All and the Movement for Black Lives.
"Externally, there's been a ton of support," she said, according to The Times. "But internally, it's been extremely hostile to anything that even smells progressive."
The interview happened Saturday, shortly after major news networks called the election for President-elect Joe Biden. While Biden won the presidency, Democrats down-ticket didn't fare quite as well, with some centrist party leaders blaming progressive messaging for the loss of House seats.
lapucelle
(18,185 posts)Alhena
(3,029 posts)or something like that where she'd have a bigger impact and make a lot more money to boot (not that that's her motivation).
If you want to really make a difference, you should go where you can best do that. She has the presence and personality to perhaps to well on television.
DFW
(54,268 posts)"Your majesty."
All others only get what they want (if at all) with years of arguing, compromising, and learning to deal with frustration.
The expression, "if you can can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" is not an empty old adage. There are many kitchens, and if Washington isn't AOC's place, there are many others where she can do her thing. If she's as smart and as tough as she makes herself out to be, she'll grow a thicker skin and deal with it. But no one will force her to stay with a situation she doesn't find to be one she wants to stay in. What does she think Hillary endured over the decades? Even here on DU, was saw Barack Obama dissed as a "POS used car salesman."
If you want to see hostility from our own side, just wait until Biden is about 18 months into his administration, and hasn't yet cured Corona and cancer, eliminated student debt, medical bills, voter disenfranchisement, poverty and global warming. You will see him dissed on this very board by people who suddenly "know" that he was the worst possible choice, etc. etc. Never mind that he was probably the ONLY candidate that could have done what he did--at least out of the ones who were still running at the beginning of the year.
There are more than two choices. You are not just part of the solution OR part of the problem. No one forced her to enter politics. No one will force her to leave politics. But if she has made her foray into wanting to be part of the solution, well, she can either stick with it or not, as she sees fit. In politics, you forge alliances and/or you make enemies, and it's up to you which goal you want to pursue. If you are a Democrat, and you go around trying to primary perfectly good progressive Democrats, you will garner hostility. If you want to work with progressives that were there before you, you will forge alliances. Someone as intelligent as she obviously is must have realized that. I think she is confusing hostility toward "anything that even smells progressive" with hostility toward "anyone that tries to primary anyone that even smells progressive." If all you see is enemies, that is what you will have, but it means your vision is rather limited. I think she might see a temporary low point, but I'd be surprised if she threw in the towel already.
When I was 15, I attended the first speech by a foreign head of government (Germany), who said to have friends, you must be one. Trump never figured that out. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think AOC is smarter.
Autumn
(44,962 posts)PatSeg
(47,234 posts)Interesting comparison to a young Hillary Clinton. I remember a young, very outspoken Hillary, who also learned the hard way to control her rhetoric on the public stage. What is refreshing and passionate to some, will be a total turnoff to others. Politics is a really rough game and it is definitely not for everyone. The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is reasonable compromise. Anyone who enters the political arena expecting total consensus from colleagues and voters is in the wrong profession.
Also, I think too many people in government tend to forget its not about you, it is about the people you serve. You need a whole lot of ego to get there, but often you have to set that ego aside to serve your constituents and protect the constitution. To be a better public servant, you have to periodically step outside yourself.
Hekate
(90,518 posts)As I was telling my husband at breakfast, most of my comments about AOC boil down to I watch her progress with interest.
Shes intelligent, bright, quick, charismatic, and Id hate to see her squander her own political future because of impatience and an inability to compromise. But she may do that very thing.
Karma13612
(4,538 posts)Her some advice regarding patience and pacing herself??
Spazito
(50,105 posts)BusyBeingBest
(8,052 posts)gulliver
(13,168 posts)She doesn't say what the position of the anonymous people she's accusing of hostility is. Did they just "smell" something "progressive" and react with irrational "hostility?" Or was her approach to getting what she wants just ineffective? If she can't be specific about what the hitch is in her sales quota underperformance, maybe it's the latter. Maybe she really is in the wrong job.
Takket
(21,525 posts)PatSeg
(47,234 posts)for her to promote and enact her ideas. I'm not sure she really understands how government works.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)If you read the election results starting with the primaries, the divisive name-calling was rejected by voters. Its about unity now.
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)I Just dont know. But if she feels like her time is not well spent she should go and I for one will miss her.
ananda
(28,831 posts).. liberal policies into our society.
No politician can do it alone.
Baltimike
(4,137 posts)That's just weird to me.
I'm making another tin foil hat for good measure.
BannonsLiver
(16,284 posts)Who knows. Maybe shed be happier out of Congress, but involved in some other way. Im not surprised she said this though. She clearly does not enjoy being in Congress and the politics associated with that.
Lars39
(26,104 posts)She's got social media down pat, but building relationships and coalitions takes time.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)mvd
(65,151 posts)She needs to mature a bit, too. The left needs fighters like her. Weve definitely come a long way and still have work to do in making sure the party keeps going left economically as well as socially.
4now
(1,596 posts)Response to babylonsister (Original post)
geralmar This message was self-deleted by its author.
The Polack MSgt
(13,175 posts)It isn't as if she has the breadth of political experience to become a political commentator on a major platform.
She's never even campaigned for a state wide office
I mean, she's no Claire McCaskill
Response to babylonsister (Original post)
Post removed
Celerity
(43,057 posts)Nor did a single one run on socialism. The Rethugs scream socialism and commie commie! every election, it is nothing new.
If you get your wish and run AOC and most of the other progressives out of office, you will cleave off a huge segments from multiple voting blocs (from the more progressive 1/4 to 1/2rd of the party, plus a tonne of the younger voters) and doom us in state-wide races and nationally. It is a big tent party, and this purity test of 'only marginally centre-left to centrists to even some centre-right moderates and a few conservatives need apply' is electoral suicide.
Wanderlust988
(509 posts)Regardless if they endorsed them or not. It was horrible. It's the reason why we lost congressional races.
Response to Wanderlust988 (Reply #123)
Celerity This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hekate
(90,518 posts)Defund the Police didnt come out of the Dem Party itself it came out of the agony of the BLM actions but it got hung around the necks of every Democrat running for office this year because it was snappy, easy to repeat, and had no nuance.
Celerity
(43,057 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,315 posts)She would be familiar with that concept.
Spazito
(50,105 posts)I think Representative James Clyburn, 37 years in Congress knows more about why losses/wins occurred than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 3 years in Congress. Experience does count.
Happy Hoosier
(7,209 posts)How to build coalitions within the party.
If you are always poking people in the eye, they tend to get annoyed.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)rather than repeating the errors that have rendered him an utterly ineffective politician.
Happy Hoosier
(7,209 posts)moondust
(19,956 posts)Thomas Frank has a critique of what some might call 40 years of neoliberalism that didn't start with Trump and won't end with his defeat. I think Republicans deserve more blame than he gives them for dragging the "center" farther and farther right starting with Gingrich, Delay, and Kenneth Starr's witch hunt. And not to forget that Republicans did pretty well in down-ballot races despite Trump.
Ding-dong, the jerk is gone. But read this before you sing the Hallelujah Chorus
OnDoutside
(19,945 posts)in Red Districts. If she is unwilling to take that on board, then maybe she is right about leaving politics, which is unfortunate because she is clearly very intelligent and talented. As President Obama frequently says, it's not about getting everything you want, it's about making things better.
Hekate
(90,518 posts)tavernier
(12,364 posts)But then again, I am for term limits anyway.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)and even thrive and be incredibly effective even after being treated in a 'hostile' manner for decades.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)betsuni
(25,367 posts)Still don't know what that's supposed to mean.
Celerity
(43,057 posts)onetexan
(13,019 posts)she'd make a damn good lawyer.
Vivienne235729
(3,376 posts)Then that's on her. Her tenure has been during Trump's fiasco and McConnell's bullshit. What did she think could possibly be accomplished? We couldn't even get rid the bloated criminal in the WH bc the senate stopped us.
oasis
(49,317 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)At one time she was "on the board" for Justice Democrats. I wonder if she'll return there to make that her career, or if it will be a springboard to something else.
Only time will tell. I'll watch with interest.
Response to babylonsister (Original post)
Post removed
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Part of healing the country will be healing the Party.
Look, we have to stick together and craft messages we can all agree on, in language that will have broad appeal.
She needs to be part of the very important effort, and so do centrist Dems.
We agree on 90% or more in policy terms. Let's focus on that, and infiltrate RW media with a unified message to undermine the oligarchs' noise.