had effectively no Republican opposition. In fact, we now know she had effectively no active Democratic opposition. 
That was wonderful for her, but by far most other Democrats don't have those advantages. And many good candidates simply cannot fund campaigns on small local donations, not and compete successfully against super PAC funded Republican opponents.
Please note that deciding who's worthy by whether they take big-donor money would pit them against many representatives of minority-dominated districts and also in opposition to MOST of the members of the house's Progressive Caucus. Out of, I believe, 88 members this term, only 4 took the pledge to only take small donations; many felt they could not. The answer is taxpayer funded campaigns, not allowing foolish ideologues to railroad good people out of office.
I do keep determining to give Ocasio more time to see what she brings to the job. She doesn't make it easy, though. She's keeps giving off troubling signs like this latest thing of trying to primary people she and other outsiders choose. I strongly disapprove of not respecting the beliefs and wishes of local residents to decide who they want to represent them. For instance, it's not for Ocasio to decide that conservatives in WV shouldn't elect conservative representatives.
On the plus side, this group is likely to get their asses handed to them in the end, that's the way democracy usually works, but not before they manage to derail the wishes of local citizens in some few districts. And that's bad. I don't approve.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read