It's easy to say that she's just a junior congressperson, and she is but she's representing, aside from her own constiuents, a huge number of left leaning voters who have not felt served by the mainstream democratic party as a whole. Of course people are paying attention to her. That she's just a congressperson is emblematic of how little reach and voice the left has had. And a democratic party who continually asks why these left leaning voters don't show up in large enough numbers on election would do well to keep in mind that many of these voters are watching now.
It works in reverse.
Those left-leaning voters *did* show up and now they're getting representation they can look up to.
It's easy to say that she's just a junior congressperson, and she is but she's representing, aside from her own constiuents, a huge number of left leaning voters who have not felt served by the mainstream democratic party as a whole. Of course people are paying attention to her. That she's just a congressperson is emblematic of how little reach and voice the left has had. And a democratic party who continually asks why these left leaning voters don't show up in large enough numbers on election would do well to keep in mind that many of these voters are watching now.
This is again an attempt to reframe reality really hard. Casting everyone not AOC as not being "the left". Assuming that there's a ton of "left leaning voters" who constitute those not voting in elections. Assuming AOC herself speaks to this assumed group. It's a little silly given there was just an election where a ton of Democrats, both new and old, ran on a wide variety of platform and basically all of them as far as I'm aware were leaning on new voters enthused to show up to the polls because of hard work by lots of campaigns.
She's getting a lot of attention because she's trying real hard to get a lot of attention and because the specifics of her public image make the media (both right and mainstream) pay attention. There's not a ton more to it. Hopefully she succeeds in doing something good with it.
It's easy to say that she's just a junior congressperson, and she is but she's representing, aside from her own constiuents, a huge number of left leaning voters who have not felt served by the mainstream democratic party as a whole. Of course people are paying attention to her. That she's just a congressperson is emblematic of how little reach and voice the left has had. And a democratic party who continually asks why these left leaning voters don't show up in large enough numbers on election would do well to keep in mind that many of these voters are watching now.
This is again an attempt to reframe reality really hard. Casting everyone not AOC as not being "the left". Assuming that there's a ton of "left leaning voters" who constitute those not voting in elections. Assuming AOC herself speaks to this assumed group. It's a little silly given there was just an election where a ton of Democrats, both new and old, ran on a wide variety of platform and basically all of them as far as I'm aware were leaning on new voters enthused to show up to the polls because of hard work by lots of campaigns.
She's getting a lot of attention because she's trying real hard to get a lot of attention and because the specifics of her public image make the media (both right and mainstream) pay attention. There's not a ton more to it. Hopefully she succeeds in doing something good with it.
Trying to divorce her popularity from the policies she's advocating is odd.
+3
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
I still get my insurance from the exchanges. The ACA was an absolute good that changed a great many lives for the better, mine included. But if a watered down version version of an old Republican heathcare plan that enshined the insurance companies hold on the health care market into law is the best example of Democratic leadership we have then excuse me for not being impressed.
I like the Dem’s planks. I vote straight line blue every election. I dislike how ineffective they are at advocating for and achieving those goals. I believe the failure at the latter stems from the failure at the former, with the brief shining counter example of Campaign Obama who I feel President Obama utterly failed, especially on foreign policy and immigration. He doubled down and continued a great many policies that I feel are morally reprehensible and the praise that he gets on those issues from many within the Dem coalition often makes me profoundly uncomfortable with my political bedfellows at times.
So yeah, I want more than what we’ve gotten in the past. Because what we’ve gotten in the past are band aids over gushing wounds. I don’t expect the Dems to always win, its unrealistic. But I do expect them to fight. Public opinion is swayable, but it means vigorously advocating for change. Something that AOC is at least trying.
It's easy to say that she's just a junior congressperson, and she is but she's representing, aside from her own constiuents, a huge number of left leaning voters who have not felt served by the mainstream democratic party as a whole. Of course people are paying attention to her. That she's just a congressperson is emblematic of how little reach and voice the left has had. And a democratic party who continually asks why these left leaning voters don't show up in large enough numbers on election would do well to keep in mind that many of these voters are watching now.
This is again an attempt to reframe reality really hard. Casting everyone not AOC as not being "the left". Assuming that there's a ton of "left leaning voters" who constitute those not voting in elections. Assuming AOC herself speaks to this assumed group. It's a little silly given there was just an election where a ton of Democrats, both new and old, ran on a wide variety of platform and basically all of them as far as I'm aware were leaning on new voters enthused to show up to the polls because of hard work by lots of campaigns.
She's getting a lot of attention because she's trying real hard to get a lot of attention and because the specifics of her public image make the media (both right and mainstream) pay attention. There's not a ton more to it. Hopefully she succeeds in doing something good with it.
Trying to divorce her popularity from the policies she's advocating is odd.
That assumes that her policies are the main differentiating factor between her and other congresspeople.
ACA was not a GOP plan, does not actually resemble the Heritage Plan people always say it does, and the Massachusetts plan we credit to Romney was passed by Democratic supermajorities over Romney's vetoes.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
It's easy to say that she's just a junior congressperson, and she is but she's representing, aside from her own constiuents, a huge number of left leaning voters who have not felt served by the mainstream democratic party as a whole. Of course people are paying attention to her. That she's just a congressperson is emblematic of how little reach and voice the left has had. And a democratic party who continually asks why these left leaning voters don't show up in large enough numbers on election would do well to keep in mind that many of these voters are watching now.
This is again an attempt to reframe reality really hard. Casting everyone not AOC as not being "the left". Assuming that there's a ton of "left leaning voters" who constitute those not voting in elections. Assuming AOC herself speaks to this assumed group. It's a little silly given there was just an election where a ton of Democrats, both new and old, ran on a wide variety of platform and basically all of them as far as I'm aware were leaning on new voters enthused to show up to the polls because of hard work by lots of campaigns.
She's getting a lot of attention because she's trying real hard to get a lot of attention and because the specifics of her public image make the media (both right and mainstream) pay attention. There's not a ton more to it. Hopefully she succeeds in doing something good with it.
Trying to divorce her popularity from the policies she's advocating is odd.
That assumes that her policies are the main differentiating factor between her and other congresspeople.
Trying to weigh the things that make her popular against each other is pointless as it can't be measured, but she's popular on the left and you don't get popular with them without actually advocating for leftist policies. So yeah, her intelligent campaign tactics get her the spotlight, but her policies are what make her popular.
When everything is counted Democrats are going to fall 2-3 million short of Trump's 2016 total. Something like 96%. That... does not happen. Closest was Nixon -> 1970, at 92% of Nixon's total.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
ACA was not a GOP plan, does not actually resemble the Heritage Plan people always say it does, and the Massachusetts plan we credit to Romney was passed by Democratic supermajorities over Romney's vetoes.
There is a persistent myth attempting to minimize what the Democrats accomplished during the brief period they controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency in order to prop up the idea that only the speaker truly represents real left-wing politics. Every election comes with it's attempts to frame the results in order to push one's political position. This is basically the beating heart of the "conflict" around AOC that doesn't involve the right-wing media.
It's easy to say that she's just a junior congressperson, and she is but she's representing, aside from her own constiuents, a huge number of left leaning voters who have not felt served by the mainstream democratic party as a whole. Of course people are paying attention to her. That she's just a congressperson is emblematic of how little reach and voice the left has had. And a democratic party who continually asks why these left leaning voters don't show up in large enough numbers on election would do well to keep in mind that many of these voters are watching now.
This is again an attempt to reframe reality really hard. Casting everyone not AOC as not being "the left". Assuming that there's a ton of "left leaning voters" who constitute those not voting in elections. Assuming AOC herself speaks to this assumed group. It's a little silly given there was just an election where a ton of Democrats, both new and old, ran on a wide variety of platform and basically all of them as far as I'm aware were leaning on new voters enthused to show up to the polls because of hard work by lots of campaigns.
She's getting a lot of attention because she's trying real hard to get a lot of attention and because the specifics of her public image make the media (both right and mainstream) pay attention. There's not a ton more to it. Hopefully she succeeds in doing something good with it.
Trying to divorce her popularity from the policies she's advocating is odd.
That assumes that her policies are the main differentiating factor between her and other congresspeople.
Trying to weigh the things that make her popular against each other is pointless as it can't be measured, but she's popular on the left and you don't get popular with them without actually advocating for leftist policies. So yeah, her intelligent campaign tactics get her the spotlight, but her policies are what make her popular.
You can actually, in the crude way one can measure anything in this kind of discussion, by looking at other politicians. It's not like AOC is the only new congresswoman the Democrats just got elected on a progressive platform.
AOC is a charismatic leftist who just got elected to office at a super young age. It shouldn't be a surprise that (especially) young leftists love her.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
It's easy to say that she's just a junior congressperson, and she is but she's representing, aside from her own constiuents, a huge number of left leaning voters who have not felt served by the mainstream democratic party as a whole. Of course people are paying attention to her. That she's just a congressperson is emblematic of how little reach and voice the left has had. And a democratic party who continually asks why these left leaning voters don't show up in large enough numbers on election would do well to keep in mind that many of these voters are watching now.
This is again an attempt to reframe reality really hard. Casting everyone not AOC as not being "the left". Assuming that there's a ton of "left leaning voters" who constitute those not voting in elections. Assuming AOC herself speaks to this assumed group. It's a little silly given there was just an election where a ton of Democrats, both new and old, ran on a wide variety of platform and basically all of them as far as I'm aware were leaning on new voters enthused to show up to the polls because of hard work by lots of campaigns.
She's getting a lot of attention because she's trying real hard to get a lot of attention and because the specifics of her public image make the media (both right and mainstream) pay attention. There's not a ton more to it. Hopefully she succeeds in doing something good with it.
Trying to divorce her popularity from the policies she's advocating is odd.
That assumes that her policies are the main differentiating factor between her and other congresspeople.
Trying to weigh the things that make her popular against each other is pointless as it can't be measured, but she's popular on the left and you don't get popular with them without actually advocating for leftist policies. So yeah, her intelligent campaign tactics get her the spotlight, but her policies are what make her popular.
You can actually, in the crude way one can measure anything in this kind of discussion, by looking at other politicians. It's not like AOC is the only new congresswoman the Democrats just got elected on a progressive platform.
The biggest reason she got into the spotlight in the first place was that her primary was during a relatively quiet period and against leadership. Not every young candidate was that lucky. But again, trying to erase the value of her politics in securing her enduring popularity is odd and honestly reads mostly like an attempt to get around how her differences from the party as a whole have made her popular among young left voters.
When everything is counted Democrats are going to fall 2-3 million short of Trump's 2016 total. Something like 96%. That... does not happen. Closest was Nixon -> 1970, at 92% of Nixon's total.
We really need to appreciate blue turnout this year
2006 is reported as a bigger blue wave, but saw far less blue turnout- the margins were merely bigger because R turnout was lower
2010 was a bigger red wave, but blue turnout was pitiful, again driving up margins
R turnout this year was high!!! But blue voters still whooped ‘em. The stat you shared is kind of nuts.
This was a stupid midterm turnout for blue voters, but the fact that the margins and pickups weren’t greater just reflect the way the house and senate are stacked against us, and a reminder that as phenomenally stupid and awful as Trump is, R voters still want to come out to stick it to libs. Every election and every policy change/fix is going to be a goddamn bloody fight.
When everything is counted Democrats are going to fall 2-3 million short of Trump's 2016 total. Something like 96%. That... does not happen. Closest was Nixon -> 1970, at 92% of Nixon's total.
Yeah, doesn't bode well for Trump going forward. The fucker isn't going to get more popular and what's going on in CA and New England should have some establishment types really worried because the GOP has been nearly wipes out in those areas because of the national party being super shitty. That's prime ground for an alternative party to build up a base and then start taking territory away from the GOP in other states. I think the big excuse I hear for continued support of the GOP from some and the existence of blue dog democrats, is that "we don't have established brand outside the two main parties to rely on." With the GOP pretty much getting decimated in some areas, that kind of removes the excuse.
I'd also argue most of the fight in GA and FL wasn't about keeping the likes of Kemp, Scott and DeSantis from getting wins. I mean want them to win, but after a point it became clear they were winning. It was about highlighting all the shit those fuckers were pulling and to try and get things in place to shut it down going forward.
When everything is counted Democrats are going to fall 2-3 million short of Trump's 2016 total. Something like 96%. That... does not happen. Closest was Nixon -> 1970, at 92% of Nixon's total.
We really need to appreciate blue turnout this year
2006 is reported as a bigger blue wave, but saw far less blue turnout- the margins were merely bigger because R turnout was lower
2010 was a bigger red wave, but blue turnout was pitiful, again driving up margins
R turnout this year was high!!! But blue voters still whooped ‘em. The stat you shared is kind of nuts.
This was a stupid midterm turnout for blue voters, but the fact that the margins and pickups weren’t greater just reflect the way the house and senate are stacked against us, and a reminder that as phenomenally stupid and awful as Trump is, R voters still want to come out to stick it to libs. Every election and every policy change/fix is going to be a goddamn bloody fight.
And 2010 really needs to have the context of 10% unemployment and the bottoming out of a Recession that lasted four full quarters (ie Obama's full first year in office) welded onto it. Plus, you know, black guy.
These results happened in the face of a relatively great economy and pretty hard gerrymander. Imagine what would have happened if the economy crashed in September. Which, thankfully it didn't. Black gubernatorial candidates missed the mark by a hair in the Deep South. And Georgia wasn't even a free and fair election by all accounts. Florida I'm willing to grant as just being Florida, though the new voters will definitely help next go 'round.
It's easy to say that she's just a junior congressperson, and she is but she's representing, aside from her own constiuents, a huge number of left leaning voters who have not felt served by the mainstream democratic party as a whole. Of course people are paying attention to her. That she's just a congressperson is emblematic of how little reach and voice the left has had. And a democratic party who continually asks why these left leaning voters don't show up in large enough numbers on election would do well to keep in mind that many of these voters are watching now.
This is again an attempt to reframe reality really hard. Casting everyone not AOC as not being "the left". Assuming that there's a ton of "left leaning voters" who constitute those not voting in elections. Assuming AOC herself speaks to this assumed group. It's a little silly given there was just an election where a ton of Democrats, both new and old, ran on a wide variety of platform and basically all of them as far as I'm aware were leaning on new voters enthused to show up to the polls because of hard work by lots of campaigns.
She's getting a lot of attention because she's trying real hard to get a lot of attention and because the specifics of her public image make the media (both right and mainstream) pay attention. There's not a ton more to it. Hopefully she succeeds in doing something good with it.
I would add the groups she associates with - Justice Democrats and Our Revolution - failed to flip a single House seat. Pressley was backed by Justice Dems and beat Capuano. OR endorsed 20 House challengers and they all lost.
And AOC personally campaigned against some of the most progressive swing district winners like Sharice Davids.
It's easy to say that she's just a junior congressperson, and she is but she's representing, aside from her own constiuents, a huge number of left leaning voters who have not felt served by the mainstream democratic party as a whole. Of course people are paying attention to her. That she's just a congressperson is emblematic of how little reach and voice the left has had. And a democratic party who continually asks why these left leaning voters don't show up in large enough numbers on election would do well to keep in mind that many of these voters are watching now.
This is again an attempt to reframe reality really hard. Casting everyone not AOC as not being "the left". Assuming that there's a ton of "left leaning voters" who constitute those not voting in elections. Assuming AOC herself speaks to this assumed group. It's a little silly given there was just an election where a ton of Democrats, both new and old, ran on a wide variety of platform and basically all of them as far as I'm aware were leaning on new voters enthused to show up to the polls because of hard work by lots of campaigns.
She's getting a lot of attention because she's trying real hard to get a lot of attention and because the specifics of her public image make the media (both right and mainstream) pay attention. There's not a ton more to it. Hopefully she succeeds in doing something good with it.
Trying to divorce her popularity from the policies she's advocating is odd.
That assumes that her policies are the main differentiating factor between her and other congresspeople.
Trying to weigh the things that make her popular against each other is pointless as it can't be measured, but she's popular on the left and you don't get popular with them without actually advocating for leftist policies. So yeah, her intelligent campaign tactics get her the spotlight, but her policies are what make her popular.
You can actually, in the crude way one can measure anything in this kind of discussion, by looking at other politicians. It's not like AOC is the only new congresswoman the Democrats just got elected on a progressive platform.
Ocasio Cortez is one of four new US Reps endorsed by Our Revolution (out of 30 total who got to the general, 20 lost) and one of four new Justice Democrats to win (out of 26 who got to general 19 lost) all in very safe D districts. Neither group flipped one of the 36 or so seats Dems took. If you discount the progressiveness of Warren backed candidates like Katie Porter or Obama alumni like Sharice Davids or Haley Stevens it makes sense she'd get disproportionate coverage. It's just I think that's a dumb thing to do.
It's easy to say that she's just a junior congressperson, and she is but she's representing, aside from her own constiuents, a huge number of left leaning voters who have not felt served by the mainstream democratic party as a whole. Of course people are paying attention to her. That she's just a congressperson is emblematic of how little reach and voice the left has had. And a democratic party who continually asks why these left leaning voters don't show up in large enough numbers on election would do well to keep in mind that many of these voters are watching now.
This is again an attempt to reframe reality really hard. Casting everyone not AOC as not being "the left". Assuming that there's a ton of "left leaning voters" who constitute those not voting in elections. Assuming AOC herself speaks to this assumed group. It's a little silly given there was just an election where a ton of Democrats, both new and old, ran on a wide variety of platform and basically all of them as far as I'm aware were leaning on new voters enthused to show up to the polls because of hard work by lots of campaigns.
She's getting a lot of attention because she's trying real hard to get a lot of attention and because the specifics of her public image make the media (both right and mainstream) pay attention. There's not a ton more to it. Hopefully she succeeds in doing something good with it.
Trying to divorce her popularity from the policies she's advocating is odd.
That assumes that her policies are the main differentiating factor between her and other congresspeople.
Trying to weigh the things that make her popular against each other is pointless as it can't be measured, but she's popular on the left and you don't get popular with them without actually advocating for leftist policies. So yeah, her intelligent campaign tactics get her the spotlight, but her policies are what make her popular.
You can actually, in the crude way one can measure anything in this kind of discussion, by looking at other politicians. It's not like AOC is the only new congresswoman the Democrats just got elected on a progressive platform.
The biggest reason she got into the spotlight in the first place was that her primary was during a relatively quiet period and against leadership. Not every young candidate was that lucky. But again, trying to erase the value of her politics in securing her enduring popularity is odd and honestly reads mostly like an attempt to get around how her differences from the party as a whole have made her popular among young left voters.
No, it's an attempt to ask why she gets so much coverage and other progressive winning candidates don't. What's the differentiating factor here? And what it seems to come down to is a win that shot her into the mainstream media spotlight and a strong campaign by her to keep that spotlight on her. That's not a criticism or anything, just an observation. She's doing a good job of keeping attention on herself and pushing her agenda. And there's like 10 things about her minimum that make the right-wing media want to demonize her so she barely needs to try to keep them chain-emailing about her.
It's easy to say that she's just a junior congressperson, and she is but she's representing, aside from her own constiuents, a huge number of left leaning voters who have not felt served by the mainstream democratic party as a whole. Of course people are paying attention to her. That she's just a congressperson is emblematic of how little reach and voice the left has had. And a democratic party who continually asks why these left leaning voters don't show up in large enough numbers on election would do well to keep in mind that many of these voters are watching now.
This is again an attempt to reframe reality really hard. Casting everyone not AOC as not being "the left". Assuming that there's a ton of "left leaning voters" who constitute those not voting in elections. Assuming AOC herself speaks to this assumed group. It's a little silly given there was just an election where a ton of Democrats, both new and old, ran on a wide variety of platform and basically all of them as far as I'm aware were leaning on new voters enthused to show up to the polls because of hard work by lots of campaigns.
She's getting a lot of attention because she's trying real hard to get a lot of attention and because the specifics of her public image make the media (both right and mainstream) pay attention. There's not a ton more to it. Hopefully she succeeds in doing something good with it.
Trying to divorce her popularity from the policies she's advocating is odd.
While it is true she is popular with the far left crowd how she got there in the first place is overlooked. She’s in a super left district which is a safe Dem seat and managed to get underestimated severely by her Dem opponent who didn’t pay close attention to how his district got restructured, he was very lazy and entitled who was too focused on DC to bother taking the election seriously. What will be really interesting will be her next primary, while she has been getting stronger as a politician it will be interesting to see how she’ll do against an opponent who will take her seriously as a threat because she no longer has the advantage of being a nobody any longer. She’ll also have baggage of her voting record and history in Congress, which can be a disadvantage if her followers think she’s straying from her path.
When everything is counted Democrats are going to fall 2-3 million short of Trump's 2016 total. Something like 96%. That... does not happen. Closest was Nixon -> 1970, at 92% of Nixon's total.
We really need to appreciate blue turnout this year
2006 is reported as a bigger blue wave, but saw far less blue turnout- the margins were merely bigger because R turnout was lower
2010 was a bigger red wave, but blue turnout was pitiful, again driving up margins
R turnout this year was high!!! But blue voters still whooped ‘em. The stat you shared is kind of nuts.
This was a stupid midterm turnout for blue voters, but the fact that the margins and pickups weren’t greater just reflect the way the house and senate are stacked against us, and a reminder that as phenomenally stupid and awful as Trump is, R voters still want to come out to stick it to libs. Every election and every policy change/fix is going to be a goddamn bloody fight.
I'd be shocked if she gets even a nonserious primary challenge.
Yeah, I don't see leadership supporting anyone against her. Why would they? So it'd basically just be anyone who can get the signatures on the ballot, and I doubt they'd manage it.
Again, I just really hope she acts more like Waxman than Kucinich. Actually getting shit done, even if it's by inches.
When everything is counted Democrats are going to fall 2-3 million short of Trump's 2016 total. Something like 96%. That... does not happen. Closest was Nixon -> 1970, at 92% of Nixon's total.
We really need to appreciate blue turnout this year
2006 is reported as a bigger blue wave, but saw far less blue turnout- the margins were merely bigger because R turnout was lower
2010 was a bigger red wave, but blue turnout was pitiful, again driving up margins
R turnout this year was high!!! But blue voters still whooped ‘em. The stat you shared is kind of nuts.
This was a stupid midterm turnout for blue voters, but the fact that the margins and pickups weren’t greater just reflect the way the house and senate are stacked against us, and a reminder that as phenomenally stupid and awful as Trump is, R voters still want to come out to stick it to libs. Every election and every policy change/fix is going to be a goddamn bloody fight.
When everything is counted Democrats are going to fall 2-3 million short of Trump's 2016 total. Something like 96%. That... does not happen. Closest was Nixon -> 1970, at 92% of Nixon's total.
We really need to appreciate blue turnout this year
2006 is reported as a bigger blue wave, but saw far less blue turnout- the margins were merely bigger because R turnout was lower
2010 was a bigger red wave, but blue turnout was pitiful, again driving up margins
R turnout this year was high!!! But blue voters still whooped ‘em. The stat you shared is kind of nuts.
This was a stupid midterm turnout for blue voters, but the fact that the margins and pickups weren’t greater just reflect the way the house and senate are stacked against us, and a reminder that as phenomenally stupid and awful as Trump is, R voters still want to come out to stick it to libs. Every election and every policy change/fix is going to be a goddamn bloody fight.
The Senate is not stacked against Democrats
The median state is still between Arizona and North Carolina, which are R+3/4 in normal years. While the country as a whole is D+a couple since '92.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'd be shocked if she gets even a nonserious primary challenge.
Why? Leadership is not stupid, not every liberal or centrist incumbent is as lazy as who she was against. IIRC establishment Dems won in primaries against progressives with something like 80 per sent victories.
I'd be shocked if she gets even a nonserious primary challenge.
Why? Leadership is not stupid, not every liberal or centrist incumbent is as lazy as who she was against. IIRC establishment Dems won in primaries against progressives with something like 80 per sent victories.
You're saying centrist leadership is going to try to knock out the left wing of the party?
When everything is counted Democrats are going to fall 2-3 million short of Trump's 2016 total. Something like 96%. That... does not happen. Closest was Nixon -> 1970, at 92% of Nixon's total.
We really need to appreciate blue turnout this year
2006 is reported as a bigger blue wave, but saw far less blue turnout- the margins were merely bigger because R turnout was lower
2010 was a bigger red wave, but blue turnout was pitiful, again driving up margins
R turnout this year was high!!! But blue voters still whooped ‘em. The stat you shared is kind of nuts.
This was a stupid midterm turnout for blue voters, but the fact that the margins and pickups weren’t greater just reflect the way the house and senate are stacked against us, and a reminder that as phenomenally stupid and awful as Trump is, R voters still want to come out to stick it to libs. Every election and every policy change/fix is going to be a goddamn bloody fight.
The Senate is not stacked against Democrats
The median state is still between Arizona and North Carolina, which are R+3/4 in normal years. While the country as a whole is D+a couple since '92.
This is not a real statistic and I feel like you know the comparison is disingenuous. "The country as a whole" is not, and should not be, factor in electing the Senate. Arguing that it should be is arguing to dissolve Statehood.
The Senate is not stacked against Democrats - any Democrat has an equal shot at winning any Senate election, assuming no bullshit like we had in Georgia and that the candidate's policies appeal to the voters in that State.
Yeah but in the senate those republican voters power per vote is orders of magnitude greater than Most democratic voters
Each voter in a State has power to elect a Senator in exactly equal proportion to every other voter in the State. There is no "power per vote" disparity in the Senate.
When everything is counted Democrats are going to fall 2-3 million short of Trump's 2016 total. Something like 96%. That... does not happen. Closest was Nixon -> 1970, at 92% of Nixon's total.
We really need to appreciate blue turnout this year
2006 is reported as a bigger blue wave, but saw far less blue turnout- the margins were merely bigger because R turnout was lower
2010 was a bigger red wave, but blue turnout was pitiful, again driving up margins
R turnout this year was high!!! But blue voters still whooped ‘em. The stat you shared is kind of nuts.
This was a stupid midterm turnout for blue voters, but the fact that the margins and pickups weren’t greater just reflect the way the house and senate are stacked against us, and a reminder that as phenomenally stupid and awful as Trump is, R voters still want to come out to stick it to libs. Every election and every policy change/fix is going to be a goddamn bloody fight.
The Senate is not stacked against Democrats
The median state is still between Arizona and North Carolina, which are R+3/4 in normal years. While the country as a whole is D+a couple since '92.
This is not a real statistic and I feel like you know the comparison is disingenuous. "The country as a whole" is not, and should not be, factor in electing the Senate. Arguing that it should be is arguing to dissolve Statehood.
It's arguing that people should matter more than square footage. But that's getting far afield.
I'd be shocked if she gets even a nonserious primary challenge.
Why? Leadership is not stupid, not every liberal or centrist incumbent is as lazy as who she was against. IIRC establishment Dems won in primaries against progressives with something like 80 per sent victories.
You're saying centrist leadership is going to try to knock out the left wing of the party?
Of course, this is what primaries are for. Just like the progressives are trying to take out their competitors.
Unless Cortez is able to have a close relationship with leadership, like her opponent, then they’ll let her be.
When everything is counted Democrats are going to fall 2-3 million short of Trump's 2016 total. Something like 96%. That... does not happen. Closest was Nixon -> 1970, at 92% of Nixon's total.
We really need to appreciate blue turnout this year
2006 is reported as a bigger blue wave, but saw far less blue turnout- the margins were merely bigger because R turnout was lower
2010 was a bigger red wave, but blue turnout was pitiful, again driving up margins
R turnout this year was high!!! But blue voters still whooped ‘em. The stat you shared is kind of nuts.
This was a stupid midterm turnout for blue voters, but the fact that the margins and pickups weren’t greater just reflect the way the house and senate are stacked against us, and a reminder that as phenomenally stupid and awful as Trump is, R voters still want to come out to stick it to libs. Every election and every policy change/fix is going to be a goddamn bloody fight.
The Senate is not stacked against Democrats
The median state is still between Arizona and North Carolina, which are R+3/4 in normal years. While the country as a whole is D+a couple since '92.
This is not a real statistic and I feel like you know the comparison is disingenuous. "The country as a whole" is not, and should not be, factor in electing the Senate. Arguing that it should be is arguing to dissolve Statehood.
The Senate is not stacked against Democrats - any Democrat has an equal shot at winning any Senate election, assuming no bullshit like we had in Georgia and that the candidate's policies appeal to the voters in that State.
Yes, if we ignore the partisan inclination of rural people and the vast over representation of rural people that the Senate represents, then the Senate is not stacked against Democrats. The idea of states as semi-autonomous mini nations which deserved equal representation should have died at Appomattox.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'd be shocked if she gets even a nonserious primary challenge.
Why? Leadership is not stupid, not every liberal or centrist incumbent is as lazy as who she was against. IIRC establishment Dems won in primaries against progressives with something like 80 per sent victories.
You're saying centrist leadership is going to try to knock out the left wing of the party?
Of course, this is what primaries are for. Just like the progressives are trying to take out their competitors.
Unless Cortez is able to have a close relationship with leadership, like her opponent, then they’ll let her be.
You didn't say centrists, you said leadership. Factions vying for power is very different than the party leadership actively trying to purge.
Either way, no she's not going to face a challenge. Its a very liberal district and she's very popular.
Posts
It works in reverse.
Those left-leaning voters *did* show up and now they're getting representation they can look up to.
This is again an attempt to reframe reality really hard. Casting everyone not AOC as not being "the left". Assuming that there's a ton of "left leaning voters" who constitute those not voting in elections. Assuming AOC herself speaks to this assumed group. It's a little silly given there was just an election where a ton of Democrats, both new and old, ran on a wide variety of platform and basically all of them as far as I'm aware were leaning on new voters enthused to show up to the polls because of hard work by lots of campaigns.
She's getting a lot of attention because she's trying real hard to get a lot of attention and because the specifics of her public image make the media (both right and mainstream) pay attention. There's not a ton more to it. Hopefully she succeeds in doing something good with it.
Trying to divorce her popularity from the policies she's advocating is odd.
I like the Dem’s planks. I vote straight line blue every election. I dislike how ineffective they are at advocating for and achieving those goals. I believe the failure at the latter stems from the failure at the former, with the brief shining counter example of Campaign Obama who I feel President Obama utterly failed, especially on foreign policy and immigration. He doubled down and continued a great many policies that I feel are morally reprehensible and the praise that he gets on those issues from many within the Dem coalition often makes me profoundly uncomfortable with my political bedfellows at times.
So yeah, I want more than what we’ve gotten in the past. Because what we’ve gotten in the past are band aids over gushing wounds. I don’t expect the Dems to always win, its unrealistic. But I do expect them to fight. Public opinion is swayable, but it means vigorously advocating for change. Something that AOC is at least trying.
That assumes that her policies are the main differentiating factor between her and other congresspeople.
Trying to weigh the things that make her popular against each other is pointless as it can't be measured, but she's popular on the left and you don't get popular with them without actually advocating for leftist policies. So yeah, her intelligent campaign tactics get her the spotlight, but her policies are what make her popular.
There is a persistent myth attempting to minimize what the Democrats accomplished during the brief period they controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency in order to prop up the idea that only the speaker truly represents real left-wing politics. Every election comes with it's attempts to frame the results in order to push one's political position. This is basically the beating heart of the "conflict" around AOC that doesn't involve the right-wing media.
You can actually, in the crude way one can measure anything in this kind of discussion, by looking at other politicians. It's not like AOC is the only new congresswoman the Democrats just got elected on a progressive platform.
The biggest reason she got into the spotlight in the first place was that her primary was during a relatively quiet period and against leadership. Not every young candidate was that lucky. But again, trying to erase the value of her politics in securing her enduring popularity is odd and honestly reads mostly like an attempt to get around how her differences from the party as a whole have made her popular among young left voters.
We really need to appreciate blue turnout this year
2006 is reported as a bigger blue wave, but saw far less blue turnout- the margins were merely bigger because R turnout was lower
2010 was a bigger red wave, but blue turnout was pitiful, again driving up margins
R turnout this year was high!!! But blue voters still whooped ‘em. The stat you shared is kind of nuts.
This was a stupid midterm turnout for blue voters, but the fact that the margins and pickups weren’t greater just reflect the way the house and senate are stacked against us, and a reminder that as phenomenally stupid and awful as Trump is, R voters still want to come out to stick it to libs. Every election and every policy change/fix is going to be a goddamn bloody fight.
Yeah, doesn't bode well for Trump going forward. The fucker isn't going to get more popular and what's going on in CA and New England should have some establishment types really worried because the GOP has been nearly wipes out in those areas because of the national party being super shitty. That's prime ground for an alternative party to build up a base and then start taking territory away from the GOP in other states. I think the big excuse I hear for continued support of the GOP from some and the existence of blue dog democrats, is that "we don't have established brand outside the two main parties to rely on." With the GOP pretty much getting decimated in some areas, that kind of removes the excuse.
I'd also argue most of the fight in GA and FL wasn't about keeping the likes of Kemp, Scott and DeSantis from getting wins. I mean want them to win, but after a point it became clear they were winning. It was about highlighting all the shit those fuckers were pulling and to try and get things in place to shut it down going forward.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
And 2010 really needs to have the context of 10% unemployment and the bottoming out of a Recession that lasted four full quarters (ie Obama's full first year in office) welded onto it. Plus, you know, black guy.
These results happened in the face of a relatively great economy and pretty hard gerrymander. Imagine what would have happened if the economy crashed in September. Which, thankfully it didn't. Black gubernatorial candidates missed the mark by a hair in the Deep South. And Georgia wasn't even a free and fair election by all accounts. Florida I'm willing to grant as just being Florida, though the new voters will definitely help next go 'round.
I would add the groups she associates with - Justice Democrats and Our Revolution - failed to flip a single House seat. Pressley was backed by Justice Dems and beat Capuano. OR endorsed 20 House challengers and they all lost.
And AOC personally campaigned against some of the most progressive swing district winners like Sharice Davids. Ocasio Cortez is one of four new US Reps endorsed by Our Revolution (out of 30 total who got to the general, 20 lost) and one of four new Justice Democrats to win (out of 26 who got to general 19 lost) all in very safe D districts. Neither group flipped one of the 36 or so seats Dems took. If you discount the progressiveness of Warren backed candidates like Katie Porter or Obama alumni like Sharice Davids or Haley Stevens it makes sense she'd get disproportionate coverage. It's just I think that's a dumb thing to do.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
No, it's an attempt to ask why she gets so much coverage and other progressive winning candidates don't. What's the differentiating factor here? And what it seems to come down to is a win that shot her into the mainstream media spotlight and a strong campaign by her to keep that spotlight on her. That's not a criticism or anything, just an observation. She's doing a good job of keeping attention on herself and pushing her agenda. And there's like 10 things about her minimum that make the right-wing media want to demonize her so she barely needs to try to keep them chain-emailing about her.
While it is true she is popular with the far left crowd how she got there in the first place is overlooked. She’s in a super left district which is a safe Dem seat and managed to get underestimated severely by her Dem opponent who didn’t pay close attention to how his district got restructured, he was very lazy and entitled who was too focused on DC to bother taking the election seriously. What will be really interesting will be her next primary, while she has been getting stronger as a politician it will be interesting to see how she’ll do against an opponent who will take her seriously as a threat because she no longer has the advantage of being a nobody any longer. She’ll also have baggage of her voting record and history in Congress, which can be a disadvantage if her followers think she’s straying from her path.
Is it any wonder why the Democratic base get sick of this shit and stays home?
Who's pulling knives? There's some jockeying for policy priorities but that's not a problem.
The Senate is not stacked against Democrats
Yeah, I don't see leadership supporting anyone against her. Why would they? So it'd basically just be anyone who can get the signatures on the ballot, and I doubt they'd manage it.
Again, I just really hope she acts more like Waxman than Kucinich. Actually getting shit done, even if it's by inches.
Edited:
I resign myself to the fact that the left base is a bunch of narrow-issue voters who all hate each other because they have no sense of irony.
I would love to see what percent is actually people whose focus is "make the world better" instead of whatever thing they personally deal with.
End of the day, though, these are the allies we have, so.
Class I is.
The median state is still between Arizona and North Carolina, which are R+3/4 in normal years. While the country as a whole is D+a couple since '92.
Why? Leadership is not stupid, not every liberal or centrist incumbent is as lazy as who she was against. IIRC establishment Dems won in primaries against progressives with something like 80 per sent victories.
You're saying centrist leadership is going to try to knock out the left wing of the party?
This is not a real statistic and I feel like you know the comparison is disingenuous. "The country as a whole" is not, and should not be, factor in electing the Senate. Arguing that it should be is arguing to dissolve Statehood.
The Senate is not stacked against Democrats - any Democrat has an equal shot at winning any Senate election, assuming no bullshit like we had in Georgia and that the candidate's policies appeal to the voters in that State.
Yeah like california and new york having the same representation as the dakotas is just ridiculous.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Saying it’s not stacked against democrats is just being obtuse on purpose.
Each voter in a State has power to elect a Senator in exactly equal proportion to every other voter in the State. There is no "power per vote" disparity in the Senate.
It's arguing that people should matter more than square footage. But that's getting far afield.
Of course, this is what primaries are for. Just like the progressives are trying to take out their competitors.
Unless Cortez is able to have a close relationship with leadership, like her opponent, then they’ll let her be.
Yes, if we ignore the partisan inclination of rural people and the vast over representation of rural people that the Senate represents, then the Senate is not stacked against Democrats. The idea of states as semi-autonomous mini nations which deserved equal representation should have died at Appomattox.
You didn't say centrists, you said leadership. Factions vying for power is very different than the party leadership actively trying to purge.
Either way, no she's not going to face a challenge. Its a very liberal district and she's very popular.
Geth, close the thread
Geth, add AOC to your insta feed fam