'It's not just one district': Ocasio-Cortez pushes back on Pelosi

[BeyondGeography]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old Latina who stunned 10-term incumbent Rep. Joseph Crowley in a New York congressional race on Tuesday, is pushing back against House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s caution not to read too much into the results.

At a news conference Wednesday, Pelosi (D-Calif.) brushed off suggestions about a broader message sent by Ocasio-Cortez’s victory, saying, “They made a choice in one district.”

“So, let’s not get yourself carried away as an expert on demographics and the rest of that,” Pelosi told reporters. “We have an array of genders, generations, geography and the rest, opinion, in our caucus and we’re very proud of that.”

Ocasio-Cortez, a self-described Democratic socialist, was presented with a clip of Pelosi’s remarks during an appearance Wednesday night on CNN’s “Out Front” with Erin Burnett.

“Yeah, well, you know, I think that we’re in the middle of a movement in this country,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “I feel this movement, but that movement is going to happen from the bottom up. That movement is going to come from voters. There are a lot of really exciting races with extremely similar dynamics as mine. It’s not just one district.”

More at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/its-not-just-one-district-ocasio-cortez-pushes-back-on-pelosis-caution-not-to-read-too-much-into-her-victory/2018/06/28/ac9d9326-7abf-11e8-80be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0b0d9d671154

Someone is coming off as tone deaf and it’s not the rookie.

[msongs]

1. the descriptive word for some top level dems is "ossified" nt

[Hortensis]

38. :) 5% of that district's electorate voted.

Imagine the surprised of the complacent and/or feckless 95% who woke up to the news that they'd lost their powerful congressman.

It's fine, one powerful, very capable liberal replaced with a newbie liberal. And other experienced members of the caucus will take over his duties -- except for what he was able to do for his district of course.

KNOWLEDGEABLE and EXPERIENCED are other words for our party leadership. You should realize, this is no more a job for an untrained amateur than being an attorney or accountant is.

Ocasio seems a nice person. Hopefully she'll turn her eyes to the enormous threat from

* right wing white nationalists,
* right wing authoritarians,
* right wing billionaire kleptocrats, and
* right wing Christian dominionists

and get very serious very quickly. She has a huge, huge, huge learning curve ahead of her.

[Buns_of_Fire]

51. There comes a point, though, where any existing order has to start

handing off things to the next generation of leadership. Mentoring and grooming these folks, passing on knowledge and lessons learned, things like that.

Of course, it's just as natural that the current holders of all that experience want to keep it as long as possible.

So it's the same as it always was. Eventually, the next generations, tired of waiting, will just take it. And in another generation or two, it'll have to be wrested from them.

[Hortensis]

59. Of course, and it should happen in dribbles because of

that huge, huge learning curve.

But why on earth would anyone think THIS is as good a time as others to lose competent leaders?

Think these guys would choose this time to vote to replace their 20-year master sergeant with a new enlistee?



We're in a far bigger battle for the future our own country here and now. Does this 28-year-old know that? The first thing she needs to understand is who her friends and enemies are and why. If she can. She already failed to understand, or care, that this would be a bad time for her to replace a vet, and this came after 2016 and 2017. So we don't know that about her yet, but so far not good. She could spend the next two years cluelessly prattling about what "the establishment," represented by Democrats, isn't doing about healthcare.

[Eko]

134. Great example!

Yes, what we need now, in a time that most on here would say is pretty dire is more people with no experience, because ESTABLISHMENT!!! lol.
Prob should add

[Tom Rinaldo]

87. That was by design chosen by Party Leadership. They split up primaries in NY fo lower turn out

State office holders have primaries in one month, federal ones in a different ones. School board elections are held on a different month all together. New Yorkers get primary fatigue. This was supposed to help candidates who had the support of Party leadership and the ability to mobilize Party loyalists. The assumption was that low turn out meant that the Party machine (I am not using that term in a derogatory sense, merely descriptive) could almost always turn out enough people to elect who ever the machine supported. That may have backfired big time for Crowley - who not only was the incumbent Representative, but also the Chair of the Queens County Democratic Party and was counting on the Party network to deliver the votes he needed in a low turn out election.

[Hortensis]

91. Sure, and thanks for the discussion.

But even if these district turnouts are typically lower due to these machinations,...5%? I have been wondering what is normal for NY midterms. ?? I quickly noted 18% for PA, 20 for IN, 26% for NJ and 37% for CA this year.

Obviously, Crowley and the party machine did do something wrong. They managed to underestimate the threat from a candidate who got @2.5% of the district to vote for her.



But now the media are claiming she's a new national "superstar" because a supposed wave of enthusiasm for her swept out a party power. Dishonest media creating new fake realities for Americans are a serious problem anyway, but especially when those new versions of reality consistently, Comey-style, sabotage the image of the Democratic Party.

The numbers tell a big truth: The district's voters did not turn out. They didn't turn out for her because they were angry at him. He was white establishment and 75% of them weren't, but that didn't turn them out. Her youthful, better-than-establishment-Democrats brand of progressivism didn't excite them either.

Polls would reveal more truth, but itm we don't need them to note that she is a woman, and we do know people elsewhere are voting for women this year.

[lapucelle]

151. We had split primaries for the first time here in NY last week.

That seems to have impacted turnout. We normally vote for primary candidates in September.

[brooklynite]

112. Incorrect...

Party leadership wanted (and used to hold) all Primaries held in September. A Federal Judge ordered the Federal Primaries to be moved to June, because the local Election Boards couldn't get Primary results certified in time to issue military ballots in time for November.

[Tom Rinaldo]

139. I gladly stand correctred. I should not have just accepted an explanation given by Steve Kornaki

on MSNBC. I really should have known better. Thanks for the information.

[CentralMass]

159. That is pitiful.

[leftstreet]

2. Way to show a unified front, Nancy!

That's the way to drum up enthusiasm and beat those GOPers

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

129. Seriously.

[fleabiscuit]

3. Yes, the seasoned Ocasio-Cortez drew an overwhelming voter percentage response.

In one district already held by a democrat. Good on her.

[R B Garr]

12. +1000

It’s time to attack Republicans now.

[arthritisR_US]

39. Amazing how the media wants to focus on this race.😡

[AlexSFCA]

4. I love Nancy but she is detached

and can’t connect with a major democratic block - millenial voters, even bernie can do it. The problem is I feel democratic voters are fractured but we shouldnt be, all of us support the democratic platform and the political positions of most candidates are nearly identical, it’s the messaging that differ. Alexandria connected directly to dem voters, much the same way as trump talks directly to his supporters. This is a winning political strategy. We can hate trump all day long but we all admit that no one knows media better than him. For years, RW set the agenda and we need to change that and put them on defensive. Also, calling oneself a socialist makes no sense politically and just plain wrong. Socialism assumes public ownership and enterprise with limited or no private ownership including housing. Scandinavia is a social democracy and has nothing to do with socialism, it is a capitalistic society with strong social safety net through and through. Same with Canada.

[fleabiscuit]

5. Did you examine the voter demographics in that district? nt

[AlexSFCA]

6. it's less relevant than you may think - just look at her opponent

they could not be more different in messaging. He ruled the district with the same demographics until now. Nancy could learn something from Alexandria. She inspires people. Playing safe did not work for us. Time to play bold and uncompromising.

[JI7]

11. it was very low turnout and he didn't campaign , similar demographic changes happened in Charlie

Rangel's district . he decided not to run though .

[Meowmee]

17. This

I don't think he wanted to win, he didnt even show up to two of the debates.

[JI7]

23. it kind of felt that way to me also, especially when he didn't seem upset at all that he lost

the media is also overdoing it with the sensationalism. i doubt he was ever going to actually be speaker .

[Meowmee]

24. Yeah, agree😹

I couldn't remember who he was but my father said he has been in the news a few times. Anyway he seems like a nice person.

[whathehell]

25. Huh?

"He didn't seem upset at all that he lost"

You must have been looking at a different man than I Crowley was a Ten Term Congtessman -- He certainly did look upset, although "shell shocked" might be a better term.

[Ninsianna]

30. Which Crowley were you looking at?

The rest of us were looking at a man who conceded gracefully with a song honoring his opponent. The one who looked shell shocked was Ocasio.

Why make up things when the reality is verifiable and the exact opposite of what you claim?

[whathehell]

37. Lol

Nice try, but a graceful concessions is a sign of character, not indifference...

Of course Ocasio was surprised - she's a twenty-something First Timer who beat a Ten Term Incumbent!

P.S. There's little "verifiable reality" in human facial expressions. Their interpretation is largely subjective.

[Ninsianna]

167. I have no idea what you think you are responding to.

[whathehell]

170. That's unfortunate..

Buh bye.

[Me.]

102. He Didn't Even Show Up To All The Debates

but sent a surrogate.

[exboyfil]

50. If he decided to phone it in

Then he should have stepped aside before the primary. I appreciate his support for the nominee after the primary, but his lack of engagement in his own district strikes me as arrogant and entitled. Time for some new blood.

[Midwestern Democrat]

81. For me, the most relevant thing about this race is that the heir apparent to Nancy Pelosi got

completely blindsided in his own district - it doesn't exactly give someone confidence in the current Democratic House leadership structure that the successor to Nancy Pelosi - the man who would one day have ultimate responsibility for overseeing 435 House races - was that clueless about what was going on on the ground in his own district.

[Yavin4]

108. In context, it was much higher than other districts

Most Dem primaries for congress in NYC have low turnout.

[Cha]

48. It's more relevant than you may think.

And, if Nancy could learn from Cortex then Cortez can learn from Nancy, too.

[lapucelle]

96. That district was redrawn in 2012. N/T

[brush]

152. Seems like spliting the primary dates and the resulting low turnout...

was more the cause than voter enthusiasm.

[BeyondGeography]

8. It was a dismal response by her

Pelosi obviously feels threatened by the current environment, which she doesn’t grasp as intuitively as Sanders, which is why he resonates with younger people and she doesn’t. It’s not about age, it’s about entrenched power whose first instinct is always self-preservation. Anything that upsets the status quo, even if it’s coming from within the party she purports to lead, is more resisted than embraced.

[AlexSFCA]

9. then she should resign and let tim ryan take over

we need drastic change in strategy, go bold

[JCanete]

20. does Tim Ryan look like drastic change? Not the impression I got from him but maybe

I missed it. From the little I dug into, I didn't see a reason to go in that direction. But maybe there's a glaring gap in my familiarity.

[whathehell]

42. Maybe drastic change is more about ideas & strategies

than in "looks".

At this point, I'm more interested in what candidates SAY and HOW they say it, than in how they "look".

[JCanete]

43. heh...that was what I was referring to though, sorry if that got lost in the question's phrasing. nt

[whathehell]

45. Good to hear.

[Ninsianna]

35. Going bold would require telling all these men who can't win or

do the job on their own to sit down, instead of coddling their inept attacks on the party.

[whathehell]

40. Definitely in favor of new strategies and "going bold".

I like Nancy, but I'd like to give Ryan a chance.

[MrsCoffee]

82. Fuck that noise.

That is an incredibly ignorant strategy. Fuck the guy who said the Dem Party brand is worse than Trump. And of course Bernie agreed with him.

What a bunch of rat-fuckery.

Sorry, not gonna have our strongest, smartest, most successful women pushed out by ignorance... AGAIN.

[Ninsianna]

31. weird how he really doesn't seem to be grasping much and keeps

intuitively stuffing his foot in his mouth. He doesn't seem to be resonating with anyone but people as out of touch as he is, as he spent yestrrdaybclainjng victory while literally everyone else, of all ages was grappling with just how much we lost and the young women were reading about stocking up ok n plan B and learning about Ella and expiration dates.

That is some entrenchedself preservation there and really bad instincts, seems like the "winning" was the radical change from the status quo of the last 40 years where women were not dying in the back alleys.

Blunders like this is why the young, women, immigrants and POC reject this out of touch established old dude who kept dismissing our lives and our health as distractions from his clueless one note message.

Apparently our lives were not to be embraced with all this winning happening yesterday.

[Cha]

52. Thank You for all that Reality! I felt like

I was plopped in the freaking Twilight Zone!

I love you, Ninsianna! sigh

[Cha]

41. I don't think Nancy feels "threatened" by Cortez..

she called it as she saw it. Nate Silver called it like that, too.

Nancy has no problem grasping anything.. that's your insulting version.

P.S.

19. Who says she can't connect? In 2016 she won 80.9% of the vote in the general.

She didn't do that without connecting with voters of all ages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Nancy_Pelosi

pnwmom https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10807822

[BeyondGeography]

61. Oh really?

Pelosi thinks her fundraising chops are a major reason why she should remain leader and a 20-year incumbent who outspends his opponent 18:1 gets thumped by a grassroots candidate. That’s not a threat to her version of order in the world? Yeah, ok.

[Demsrule86]

64. No, nothing to do with Nancy..and knowing that part of New York pretty well...the

newly elected house member should consider she has to win in two years again.

[MrsCoffee]

83. Yes, really.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

133. Nancy is a wise, seasoned politician...she has to see the writing on the wall.

This is not your grandparents' Democratic Party... a new day is dawning. ¡Alexandria!

[pnwmom]

49. She won her last election by 80.9 percent,

and in the June primary including both Republicans and Democrats, she got 68 %.

So no, she's not threatened. She's realistic. Different candidates work for different districts. They're not one-size-fits-all.

[BeyondGeography]

60. I know she can still carry Pacific Heights

But many Democrats no longer want her as Leader and a fair number of candidates have used their opposition to her as a way to appeal to voters and inoculate themselves from Republican attacks. That’s why she feels threatened. Duh.

[Cha]

65. "Duh" to you.. Nancy doesn't feel "threatened".. that's

your version.

[pnwmom]

79. The members of the House choose a leader, and they're smart enough to know

that her experience and skill with the rules is critical.

Being Speaker of the House isn't a popularity contest.

OF COURSE the opposition wants to attack her. It's BECAUSE she's an effective leader, and they'd rather have someone weaker.

[BeyondGeography]

80. They attack her because it works for them

That’s not her fault; any Dem who has been at her level for as long as she has would face the same problem, especially a woman. That is a strong argument to replace her though; driving up someone’s negatives into the 50s takes years.

Another reason to replace her is right there in the OP. There’s a bright new star in the Party, and when asked about it our Leader comes off as defensive, slightly bitter, and isn’t seeing the forest for the trees.

[brush]

153. Many Democrats do though, especially with a chance in Nov...

to regain the House. We sure need experience in the in-and-outs of House procedural rules in the Speaker's chair if that happens so as to begin impeachment proceedings against what's sure to be staunch repug opposition and trickery.

[murielm99]

155. Nancy is elected speaker by her peers in the House.

I don't see them throwing her out. I don't believe she feels threatened, either.

She has kept her coalition strong and voting together.

These things are facts. Your post is a collection of vague, unverified opinions. It seems rather right-wing as well.

[R B Garr]

10. She was for abolishing ICE in a heavily Latino district --

over 50% non-white anyway.

[JCanete]

22. Yes, agreed. I'm all for a progressive wave of people who refuse to take money from big

donors, and love that she took the seat. I certainly don't mind her promoting an enthusiasm for grass-roots politics, but certainly, lightening struck for a few different reasons, and one of them I'm sure, was her position on ICE at just the right time in that district. It was an upset after all, and one that I don't remember any polling suggesting before primary day.

She's been pretty up-front about the fact that low enthusiasm is an opportunity for lesser-known candidates with little name recognition, because they only need to inspire a small number of people who they can actually reach and meet in order to swing an election. That doesn't mean that now that she's truly on the map, she won't inspire a whole lot more people to go out and vote in November(?) though.

[R B Garr]

92. Yes, she should refuse all money and do it on her own as that

is her goal. Other than that, implying people are corrupt because "corporations" is a stupid idea.

Her district looks reliably Democratic, so she can rely on people being "inspired." Looks like you are echoing Pelosi's sentiments about her district. Don't read too much into just one Democratic district with low voter turnout.

[lapucelle]

97. Is she taking money or help from dark money groups like Our Revolution? N/T

[R B Garr]

118. Actually, it looks like she is getting their help. Great point. Some dark money

groups like Justice Democrats were founded by people like that Cenk Uyger. It is interesting how the dark money groups operate.

[lapucelle]

141. Cenk is the best "progressive" that Republican money can buy.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-the-young-turks-raises-4-million-from-former-louisiana-governor-20140416-story.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/political-news-outlet-young-turks-raises-20-million-after-viewership-gains-1502186406

[R B Garr]

148. Wow, what an absolute scam. Funded by Republicans

and some “venture capitalists” (isn’t that Wall Street??) and all the other anonymous players who want to throw in. Simply unbelievable. Great links as always, lapucelle. Sickening what is going on, though. Big money in bashing Democrats.

[lapucelle]

149. ...

[JCanete]

113. the problem with money from corporations is that you don't have to be corrupt. I don't know

why you don't get that. You just have to hold positions that said corporation finds preferable to your opponent, and they will give you a leg up. By accepting that money you are letting them speak louder than everybody else.

[R B Garr]

116. You are still insulting people with this contrived scenario. It is implying all kinds of corruption

Talk about getting a "leg up" -- that whole contrived talking point is meant to be a leg up for those spouting it. No proof is ever needed, just baseless claims that are meant to bestow the speaker with all kinds of purity and high esteem and to damage "opponents." edit: for instance, I've been called a "corporate" Dem, and it is meant as an insult, to set me apart from other Democrats. Even Ocasia Cortez said that in her ad.

[JCanete]

119. are you trying to tell me money doesn't have an impact? That would be absolutely ridiculous.

It is not an insult to say that money helps and that money operates AS speech. Frankly, it is insulting to brush over that fact.

[R B Garr]

120. It is meant as an insult. It implies corruption. I am not associated with

any corporations, and I was called a corporate Dem. It is a divisive and insulting term meant to benefit the speaker to imply they are not corrupt or "influenced." There is never any proof offered, just accusations.

[JCanete]

123. It is meant to draw a distinction, absolutely. Some I'm sure, believe that if you are taking money,

you are working for the highest bidder. I explained to you how I do not ascribe to that thinking, but that in the end it doesn't matter. If you have a world view that is softer on corporations, to hedge their bets they will support you over a candidate who is gunning for them. That does not make you corrupt for seeing the world through the lens you see it. It makes the lens you see it through an acceptable compromise for powerful special interests though.

By the way, it also doesn't make you wrong. Nor do I discount the realities of running a campaign where, as I've already said, money acts as speech. In most cases, how does one win if they refuse to take corporate money? In their own judgement, I can see them saying, "it isn't impacting my positions, so why would I cut off my nose to spite my face" and not take it to promote the policies and positions I believe in?" Unfortunately that's the same argument that we get from people like Paul Ryan when talking to the Parkland Survivors, so how do we draw a contrast not simply of policy, but of principle if we use the same rationale for why its okay when we take money?

I have simply given you my reasoning for why our politicians shouldn't. That said, I don't condemn those who have or do. I will probably vote for their challengers who don't in the primary, but its not like I don't get it. The problem remains though, you are a more viable candidate if you can raise big money. You are promoted by papers as a viable candidate if you have a war-chest. By virtue of having one you've already been established as a frontrunner for free by the media at large.

[R B Garr]

124. I really don't need paragraphs of explanation over something that is contrived

and not real anyway, sorry. This is an exact example of trying to create an alternate reality. Back to reality. We should stick with reality. Trying to explain that people have flawed characters because something something corporations is a stupid idea.

I'm more a Costco Democrat, LMAO.

I have no idea what you are even talking about "if you have a world view that is softer on corporations". That doesn't mean anything. It is a contrived gotcha that is mean to elevate the speaker as if they know something that sets them apart and makes them superior (see your first sentence). It is a contrived and divisive talking point.

[JCanete]

125. Do you really want to get into specifics? There are plenty that can be and have been talked about

ad nauzeum.

But without us even diving into that,

please at least acknowledge that there is some policies some big corporations will like and some policies they will not like. Granted, sometimes there are some policies/positions that are favorable to some corporations and unfavorable to others...and I don't there's a reason to be coy if I were to ask you how you think the donations from these companies might fall.

There are a whole lot of corporations, just as an example for you, that are probably not particularly bullish on a 15 dollar minimum wage. Now who are they going to support...the candidate who says we can do it, or the candidate who says its impractical? I think we can both agree, they're going to support most strongly the GOP candidate who says minimum wages are a deterrent to healthy market forces...whether that's their idealism or whether they are simply willing to say whatever the highest bidder wants them to say. But as an alternative? Which of the two?


Seriously, I have no idea what you are describing as contrived.

As to whether or not that makes those candidates superior...well does it? It is a value set they either believe in or are selling that either you also believe in or you don't. In your case, you don't, clearly. So in your mind it doesn't make them superior. It does give you information about them that informs your decision.

I would like a straight answer from you though. Does corporate money impact races? That is a simple yes and no.

[R B Garr]

126. I keep telling you that *I* was called a corporate Dem which made me laugh

my head off in derision as to how phony the whole thing is. Of course there are bad actors in corporations, but that is not how it is used. It is used exactly how I outlined it before. It is used as a way to divide Democrats, otherwise it wouldn't be used to insult people.

[JCanete]

127. Well unless you are yourself getting backing that is just really bad shorthand to suggest that

you are in favor of dems who are cozier with big corporate ideals, which again, is a legitimate position. You can hold that they are the best candidates in a race. You can hold that the other candidates are working from an unpragmatic and thus, ineffective platform. I wish you wouldn't hold that corporate money doesn't then become a factor, because I think that's patently absurd. But you could still hold, as Barney Frank has, that it is a necessary factor that without which, we would not be competitive at all.

An insult that calls dems corporate is I agree, simplistic, and has the further connotation of assuming that a dem is literally bought. I confess I've used it and may in the future, though I tend to use establishment dems, which I'm sure you would also take issue with, but in that case I think the baggage that term carries is more in line with what you believe of the democratic establishment. There certainly is one. It is a quick way to refer to those that have a certain vision for the party and the way it has and should operate.

[R B Garr]

132. There you go, they are two separate issues. One is money in politics, which has

been an issue for decades. No one alive hasn't heard of it, so it's not a new ideation, it has just been co-opted and weaponized to elevate the speaker, to distinguish them and to bestow upon them some kind of purity and esteem. So they are exploiting "corporations," too, in an effort to enhance their image. There really is no need for this repetition. This was all in prior posts.

Calling people simplistic names like "corporate" Democrat is just another way to campaign and it divides Democrats into good/evil camps so that the speaker can elevate themselves. They exploit the word, too. Being called a corporate Dem is an insult to mean you are not a pure Democrat and you are "cozy" with corporation, a totally inane and banal accusation which never comes with any proof. You call it a "certain vision" which is a dressed up way to describe what I just did -- divisive rhetoric meant to elevate the speaker and imply a superior position.

This is all just repetitive now. You have basically agreed with my summation of how calling Democrats "corporate" is meant as an insult and to divide Democrats into camps. This is all repetitive now. It was all in prior posts.

[JCanete]

136. well I would be very interested to know how you think the distinction should be made, because

the distinction is not simply rhetoric, and frankly I want it made. You have glanced over the fact that money impacts races, which again, DOES MEAN that those who don't antagonize corporations as much as their challengers may absolutely get a leg up, and it does not matter if that is simply their true philosophy or not. They are advantaged by virtue of having it.

You think its divisive to talk about this issue. I disagree. I think making it a part of the democratic vision frees up politicians to take that stand because that stand responds to a cry from the public, versus simply taking a stand in a wilderness where nobody can hear your efforts and in the process losing all competitive funding. And I think that if we are going to take on the Republicans in a more effective way going forward, these are the ways we as a party can distinguish ourselves. It is so much easier to point to republicans as corrupt and in it for the money if we can simply say "you guys take money...you are bought." We can't say that because there are too many qualifiers.

[R B Garr]

137. No, I haven't glanced over anything. I said it's divisive to call people names. Now you are

on a whole different tangent. Everyone knows about money in politics. It is nothing new. That has nothing to do with calling people names to elevate yourself.

This is repetitive.

You keep changing the scope as if you think it is a complicated issue and it's not.

Note that the divisive names have been used against Democrats. Now you're bringing Republicans into it when we all know how they are, and they are not like Democrats. That is another way to say "both sides are the same".

This is repetitive, except now you are changing the scope of your concerns to make it seem that uttering corporations makes you more esteemed and pure. Everyone knows that Republicans always get more money than* Democrats, so your analogies are false.

edit:all these paragraphs and you confirm what I said in the first post. Saying people are “bought” is implying corruption. It is also an insult. Insulting people by calling them corrupt with no proof is a stupid idea,

*another edit

[JCanete]

140. no, to some extent we are talking about whether or not a democratic candidate can

draw a distinction between themselves and somebody who takes corporate funding. This is not another way to say both sides are the same, but it is certainly a way that others can say so...so why give them that power? I don't actually know that its true that all republicans are bought...certainly some of them are simply idealistic in a way that I find is poisonous. Do you have a problem with labeling them as corrupt? Or do you think the democrats problem in general is that we just aren't civil enough? I want to take away any road-blocks from our ability to call out GOP corruption because it is pretty fucking apparent. I have said time and time again with you in this exchange that I don't believe that taking money itself equates to corruption. I think for the most part, the democratic field is populated with good people who want to do good. But they also mostly take corporate money, and that sure as fuck obfuscates our ability to tell the difference and make that case to the American public, and it sure as fuck gives them a leg up on people who don't. Why shouldn't those people tout that as a fundraising tool?

[R B Garr]

142. You were just talking about candidates being "bought".

That implies corruption. All these paragraphs and you said what I did. Using “corporations” as a club is implying candidates are bought. Back to the first post where I said there is never any proof required, only accusations. Show some proof before you try to elevate yourself by calling Democrats corrupt.

This reminds me of a fishing expedition, like someone filing defamatory lawsuits on people but never offering proof, just accusations. Eventually people see through the nonsense.

Calling people corrupt or “ bought” with no proof is a form of corrupt in itself.

[JCanete]

144. I was referring specificaly to republicans in that case. You are right as I've said, saying

"corporate dems" does have a connotation that implies corruption. But the problem we have here is that you can almost never
prove somebody was bought and paid for anyway. It is nearly unprovable except for in explicit examples of quid pro quo. . I think that people fighting this fight need to make it clear, as I have done with you, that taking money in itself doesn't have to mean that you are personally corrupt, but as I have also said here, it doesn't really matter, because that money has the same impact on an election whether a candidate is sincere or corrupt.

So it is an entirely valid aspect of a candidate to focus on. If you want to suggest a better way of focusing on that aspect, I'm all ears. Instead, what I'm getting from you is that even touching that is dirty pool, which obviously, I cannot accept.

[R B Garr]

145. It is not valid to imply people are corrupt with no

proof. This is repetitive. Your whole scenario is the exact contrived scenario I already noted in previous posts. It is not necessary to explain anymore because you are literally making it up as you go.

This is very repetitive.

I was called a corporate Dem, along with millions of others. Calling people names is divisive. It is meant to benefit the accuser’s image.

[JCanete]

146. what is contrived...money in politics? Money affecting who wins in races? Yes, it is very repetative

[R B Garr]

147. Money in politics is a bigger issue than calling

people names and accusing them of being bought, especially with countless empty accusations meant only to elevate the speaker’s image.

[GaryCnf]

55. Thank you for this insight

This is claiming that Latino voters are single issue voters (as opposed to the enlightened establishment voters? ) and, almost as bad, claiming that Crowley, who was out protesting family separations days before the election, was somehow weak on this issue.

Are you serious?

[R B Garr]

89. Point to where I claimed what you said. I see horrible

immigration stories on my TV all day long now. Don’t you?? Doesn’t it bother you what’s going on in our country’s name?? Maybe lots of people think that’s more important to stop than some imaginary “corporate” Dems.

And same to you...

[GaryCnf]

100. Your "explanation" for her victory over the DCCC favorite

Was that she ran on abolishing ICE in a heavily Latino district, a fact which did not set her apart from Crowley, who was close to as vocally an anti-ICE representative as we have.

Given that they BOTH were anti-ICE and you deny it was a rejection of establishment politics, it's pretty obvious what you are saying

But nice try at diversion.

[R B Garr]

117. Cool story!

Luckily there is the real info on the internet,,,

[Duppers]

16. Democratic socialism is much the same as social democracy.

I'm with Alexandria!!

Here's the difference between a 'socialist' and a 'Democratic socialist'
John Haltiwanger Jun 28, 2018

"Democratic socialists ... generally believe the government should help provide for people's most basic needs and help all people have an equal chance at achieving success.

Ocasio-Cortez's platform, for example, calls for Medicare for all, tuition-free college, and treats housing as a right.

Democratic socialists ... believe strongly in democracy and democratic principles. They are by no means proponents of authoritarian government systems many Americans associate socialism with.

The DSA supports reforms that would decrease the influence of money in politics, empower ordinary people in workplaces and the economy, and restructure gender and cultural relationships to be more equitable, according to its website.

http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-socialist-and-democratic-socialist-2018-6

This is what my 31yo professional son calls himself. Educated millennials get this.

[whathehell]

28. Yes it is.

Thanks for the Informative link.

[haele]

110. However, a democratic socialist is not the same as a socialist democrat.

FDR "New Deal" and Johnson "Great Society" democrats are socialist democrats.

Most of the Nordic countries are actually social democracies, rather than democratic socialist governments.

There's a lot of confusion, as on the surface, it appears the goals for both are the same, but Socialism imposed by a majority of voters is not the same as Democracies that lean Socialist.

Democratic Socialist societies fracture power very quickly if the majority of the population, for whatever reason, decides that they don't want to be socialist anymore and votes accordingly. Policies are drafted and set by law by the majority party under decisional term limits (i.e., Strong, immediate Socialist policies when the Democratic Socialists are in power, tax cuts and hollowing out policies when Conservatives are in power), and can be undone by law.
And we in California experience every year what happens in a propositional -driven government when policies can come up for vote at any time based on whichever group has enough money to put it on the ballot instead of a coalition of parties establishing achievable long term goals. Oh, yes - "Everyone can make their own decisions" and vote, but it's still majority rule by fiat, with a larger group of minorities being adversely affected vice a small group that can be more easily accommodated when the situation comes up.
Prop 13, Prop 187, Prop 8 - and the way we've been funding our infrastructure through propositions for bond funding, because legislators are afraid to bring up transportation fees and taxes - those all have had adverse affects on the California, creating massive panics and long-term affects.

Socialist Democracies have incentives to build socialist policies across party lines addressing and taking into account a variety of interests in such a way that can usually weather changes in political whims of the voters. The policies are ingrained in the bureaucracies and acceptable to all but the most radical of either the right or left.

Give me a Socialist Democrat any day. Democratic Socialists - well, they've got their hearts in the right places, but too many of them don't want to govern, they want to lead the charge - and those are definitely two different actions with different long term affects.

Of course, Revolution is Sexy, especially to the young. Up until people start getting desperate, hurt or killed.

Haele

[Duppers]

111. Excellent! TY! nt

[Exotica]

114. to your excellent post I will add somewhat comprehensive definitions and bit of a mini-rant

I am a dual citizen of the UK/US and I see major differences in terms of labels between the European version of things ( for example, a liberal in Europe is usually a centre-right free market proponent, with much less stress on major social and racial issues than a liberal in the US.) Neoliberal in Europe is much more likely to mean a Thatcherite type of RW'er than it does in the US, although the 3rd way policies of Blair blurred the lines, and have been carried over the US to criticise (almost exclusively from what I see) people who adhere to similar Blairite adherents such as the now defunct DLC, etc. I almost never see neoliberal applied to centre-right US politicians by Americans themselves.

The other thing is the absolute electoral poison that is attached to the word socialist in the US versus Europe, as the US is far more reactionary and the vast number of people (especially on the numpty RW) instantly equate socialist (democratic or not) with flat out Communism. It has always disturbed me so, and gives the bastard Right Wing a built in huge weapon to bash ANY attempt to regulate capitalism and to promote social welfare WITHIN an overall capitalistic economy (which ALL major European countries, including the Nordics, and then, of course, the US operates).

Bernie, the DSA, etc. do NOT help themselves by mislabelling themselves (I have yet to see ANY actual true socialist currently in the US government), OR by trying to re-define socialism in reactionary American. It is just asking for trouble, big trouble, IMHO

oki, rant over

the definitions

Social democracy (what every single major, self-labelled democratic socialist in the US actually is)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, regulation of the economy in the general interest, redistribution of income and wealth, and a commitment to representative democracy. Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater egalitarian, democratic and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Western and Northern Europe – particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries – during the latter half of the 20th century.

Social democracy originated as a political ideology that advocated a peaceful, evolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes in contrast to the revolutionary approach to transition associated with Orthodox Marxism. However, in the post-war era, contemporary social democracy separated from the socialist movement altogether and emerged as a distinct political identity that advocated reforming rather than replacing capitalism. In this period, social democrats embraced a mixed economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership. As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism, and the welfare state, while abandoning the prior goal of abolishing the capitalist system (private property, factor markets and wage labor) and substituting it for a qualitatively different socialist economic system.

Modern social democracy is characterized by a commitment to policies aimed at curbing inequality, poverty, and the oppression of underprivileged groups; including support for universally-accessible public services like education, health care, workers' compensation, child care and care for the elderly. The social democratic movement also has strong connections with trade unions and the labour movement, and is supportive of collective bargaining rights for workers as well as measures to extend democratic decision-making beyond politics into the economic sphere in the form of co-determination for employees and other economic stakeholders.

The Third Way, which ostensibly aims to fuse right-wing economics with social democratic welfare policies, is a major ideology that developed in the 1990s and is sometimes associated with social democratic parties, but some analysts have instead characterized the Third Way as an effectively neoliberal movement.


snip


Democratic socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production. Although sometimes used synonymously with "socialism", the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish itself from the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.

Democratic socialism is usually distinguished from both the Soviet model of centralized socialism and social democracy, where "social democracy" refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state. The distinction with the former is made on the basis of the authoritarian form of government and centralized economic system that emerged in the Soviet Union during the 20th century, while the distinction with the latter is made in that democratic socialism is committed to systemic transformation of the economy while social democracy is not.

That is, whereas social democrats seek only to "humanize" capitalism through state intervention, democratic socialists see capitalism as being inherently incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality, and solidarity; and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership. Ultimately democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only cause more problems to emerge elsewhere in the economy, so that capitalism can never be sufficiently "humanized" and must ultimately be replaced by socialism.

Democratic socialism is not specifically revolutionary or reformist, as many types of democratic socialism can fall into either category, with some forms overlapping with social democracy. Some forms of democratic socialism accept social democratic reformism to gradually convert the capitalist economy to a socialist one using the pre-existing political democracy, while other forms are revolutionary in their political orientation and advocate for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist economy.

snip




I personally am most definitely a social democrat (I also live part-time in 2 social democrat Nordic countries so I know exactly what this means), not a democratic socialist, and none of the US politicians who are elected or soon will be are democratic socialists either. They need to stop mis-labelling themselves, as they will never (not for decades from now, if ever) be able to remove the false, red-baiting stigma (ie. socialism equals and is exactly the same as authoritarian communism) that has commanded the American political zeitgeist for well over 100 years.

[pnwmom]

19. Who says she can't connect? In 2016 she won 80.9% of the vote in the general.

She didn't do that without connecting with voters of all ages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Nancy_Pelosi

[Cha]

46. Mahalo, pnwmom.. I just added your info to my

post to inform the OP who was dissing Nancy.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10807876

[Squinch]

63. Five miles away from Ocasio-Cortez's primary, a long standing old guard Dem won his

primary in a landslide (Engel.) So I would say Nancy is right. Lets not decide that we need to blow ourselves up. Ocasio-Cortez seems like a great candidate. So is Engel. We need them both.

[Cha]

70. Good to know.. do you know who

Engel was running against?

[DinahMoeHum]

73. He was running against 3 opponents. . .

Mount Vernon businessman Derickson Lawrence,
Scarsdale executive Jonathan Lewis
Bronx paralegal Joyce Briscoe

Election results:
https://www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/06/26/cd-16-primary-election-results-congress/731128002/

Let's just say that unlike the 14th CD, there was no compelling reason for voters to go for somebody else.

[Cha]

75. Mahalo, Dinah!

[FSogol]

78. +1 n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

130. +1,000

[R B Garr]

7. What's weird is that she did a whole segment

about the low voter turnout in her district. I think it was with Chris Hayes. So obviously she knows her district is not a great foundation for comparisons.

[JI7]

13. it was funny because i remembered them talking about how california had low turnout

and then i saw those numbers.

you would think it was some district out in some low population rural area.

[R B Garr]

14. Exactly. They both went on and on about it.

She described tactics used there to discourage turnout, but I’m forgetting her phraseology. I’ll try to find it in the interview.

But she is very aware of the glaring low turnout, so attacking Pelosi for speaking a truth about her district is not a good start. We need to work against Republicans, so hopefully she’ll be able to get out of the “Justice” Democrats mode of attacking Democrats.

[JI7]

15. this was a safe dem district so it doesn't worry me

it's the Conor Lamb type districts which we need to watch since those are the competitive seats where we do have a chance of picking up but it takes a lot of work and high turnout.

in that case it took getting much higher turnout among democrats to win and even then it was close. it shows how difficult these races are. but they are not impossible and if we are going to take control we need to win these.

[RandySF]

103. How did it turn out in NY-14?

It takes longer to tabulate votes in CA.

[whathehell]

26. Mid terms are historically "low turnout".

No surprise there.

[R B Garr]

93. They went way beyond that on Hayes' show. She was talking specifically about

her district being even lower turnout. The point being that she is very aware of her district not being good for comparison.

[whathehell]

160. I saw the Hayes Show

and I didn't agree that she went "way beyond" that basic fact...Yes, the turnout may we'll have been lower than usual and she's wise to be aware the implications the -- That said, it was an impressive win.

[R B Garr]

161. They were discussing it in detail. That is way beyond

a mere acknowledgement. This is all in the context of Pelosi’s statement about her district, which she was very aware of, and the low turnout was extraordinarily low even by low turnout standards.

[whathehell]

162. Um, yeah, well .people tend to focus on what they want to hear

but one thing can't be debated -- She Won


Y'all have a nice day now.

[R B Garr]

163. LOL, how typical.

Pelosi won, too! After all, this thread was about trying to diminish her because of a comment from Ocasia Cortez about her district, and you were unable to do that.

[whathehell]

164. LOL, you're so far off the mark..

Come back when your aim improves -- Til then, buh bye Felicia.

[R B Garr]

165. Your "she won" speaks for itself.

Really lame.

[whathehell]

27. I saw that, and it wasn't "a whole segment" on low turnout

It was her first visit as the surprise winner -- She talked about many things.

[Ninsianna]

32. Less than 30,000 people.showed up.

[JI7]

34. she got a total of about 16 thousand votes

we better hope this isn't a sign of anything other than deep blue states where only a democrat could win.

[Ninsianna]

36. She won by 3k, but this addresses the incredibly low turnout issue how?

Well, hopefully she will figure out a message that doesn'tbalienate her constituency and encourages turnout.

[whathehell]

44. Mid terms are almost ALWAYS "incredibly low turnout"

Everyone here knows that.

[Ninsianna]

168. Everyone here also knows the strange games with the primary elections NY is playing with.

Perhaps you should keep up?

[whathehell]

169. Lol

The post to which you're responding. is almost 2 weeks old...Perhaps it's you who should "keep up".

[lapucelle]

95. Turnout was low, at least in part, because NYS split its primaries.

This was the first time in our state that Congressional primaries were held in June rather than in September with the rest of the primaries.

There was nothing on the ballot (no vote for gubernatorial nominations and no ballot initiatives) except this race.

[Sanity Claws]

53. But who turned out?

The people who were excited by her. Candidates that speak directly to the people about their concerns can make people go to the polls.
That is a point that can applied to other districts.

[YOHABLO]

18. "They made a choice in one district." hmmm very interrrresssting..

[melman]

21. Excellent

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is awesome.

[whathehell]

29. Yes she is.

She did camoaign work with Bernie Sanders, which might explain some of the, um, "lack of enthusiasm" here.

[duforsure]

33. Good for her

The older Democrats aren't winning in Congress from not being progressive enough, which will drive these older ones out if they don't change quicker. We need more women, and more minorities in Congress to represent them, especially now. She is sounding better each time I hear her speak about issues, and she is backing impeachment.

[Cha]

47. Conor Lamb won in a former red district in PA on

ACA. Every district is different.

And, here he is now..

Link to tweet

[KY_EnviroGuy]

68. K&R. Truth.

I saw a photo of her campaign handout and it was perfect. Clean and to the point, with stands on issues explained in simple terms and on one inexpensive sheet of plain paper. That's one of the things we need more of to get voter attention. Everyone I know is very tired of saturation TV campaign ads.

.................

[Mike Nelson]

54. When I saw her...

… I instantly fell in love with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I trust these two women will join forces and "push back" against others.

[JNelson6563]

56. Really? What was incorrect?

Pelosi is right. This country is vast and diverse. What works in NY probably won't work in other places. We don't all get to live in ultra blue urban districts. My own district is very rural and over 30 counties. I wonder how much it has in common with the people living in dense urban centers. You may note that much of the country is blood red. I believe Montana's one CD is...still red. They didn't seem too interested in what Bernie was selling.

It is so funny and ironic that Berners INSIST that their one notion of how to win the votes will fit in every district and if you believe otherwise you are "tone deaf". You know who else believes this and totally fucks up some perfectly good campaigns? You ready for this? DCCC.

Of course they fuck up in a different way of insisting on sameness but the parallel is close enough.

[NCTraveler]

57. Amazing how ratfuckers can make so much of so little.

I feel bad for how Ocasio’s own supporters are fucking her over. She is doing well while a small percentage of her own mentally bankrupt “support” works desperately to make her look like the opposition.

[Cha]

66. I think Nancy can decide that for herself.

[Squinch]

62. How about if we stop playing into the hands of those who

think dividing Democrats is a good way to sell papers?

[Cha]

67. I know some of us aren't buying what that

piece is pushing.

Squinch

[emulatorloo]

94. +1. The tiresome false "Democrats in Disarray" narrative the pundit class is addicted to

[oberliner]

69. Pelosi is right

The win was very specific to that district. There are other districts where a similar candidate could win and many where a different type of candidate would be successful. I think it's important to recognize that. The Democratic party should reflect a broad array of candidates.

[samnsara]

71. i like nancy and cont to support her

[Kaleva]

72. We will remain a minority party if we ran candidates like Ocasio-Cortez across the board

What worked for her in a safe blue, heavily Latino district isn't transferable to a purple, white dominated district.

[Squinch]

76. Yes, exactly. But they are a huge asset where we can be sure they will win their district.

We need to stop cannibalizing ourselves. Ocasio-Cortez is a great asset. So is Nancy. So are all the old guard Dems holding their seats. So are the centrist challengers in red districts.

We need to aim our fight outward and all of us accept that our perfect candidate is right for some places and wrong for others.

We're in foxholes now. We need each other.

[lostnfound]

86. There's a subtle benefit to widening political discourse leftward, but also a risk

Fox has discussions between the far right and the center right all the time, which is effective at continually pushing perspectives rightward, while making liberal ideas seem out of the mainstream.

Wasn’t it refreshing to turn on TV and find discussions comparing “Universal health care” vs “public option for all”?

Similarly, if we end up with a discussion among Democrats of whether or not ICE should be abolished, we have a chance to educate the public about all options that are left of center. Also opportunity to show general agreement between multiple parties that immigrants are BOT disproportionately responsible for crimes, and that immigrants contribute to the economy, etc.

The downside is that the right wing is very good at parodying / broad brush stroke the whole party based on one left wing idea taken out of context.

[Kaleva]

88. Ocasio-Cortez will be a great rep for her district and a great asset to the Party

But a candidate like her wouldn't have a chance of winning in a district like Mi-01 which leans Republican.

[disillusioned73]

74. K&R..

Ocasio is the future..

[bearsfootball516]

77. I love what Osacio has done, but Nancy was right, as blunt as she was.

Out of the dozens of "Bernie" candidates that have run primaries and gotten pummeled, Osacio was the only candidate that actually won, and it was an incredibly low turnout primary. Sure, it could be a trend, but for it to be a trend, it needs to happen multiple times. Until it keeps happening over and over, it's more of an outlier than anything.

[JHan]

101. Was Dick Gephart inspiring?

Because of my age, I don't know what his leadership was like, but I'm guessing based on my reading of history he was as far from "inspiring" as one could get. Somehow with Nancy this is an extra extra requirement though.

For the record I really like Cortez but Cortez' win is not a Cantor situation - Crowley was a dickhead, plain and simple.

I disagreed with Schumer and Pelosi on Maxine - in fact disappointed in the two of them, but I'm awfully glad that finally, some folks are seeing the pointlessness of civility w.r.t Republicans because I remember those sweet days when "deplorable" was a bridge too far for some. Even talk about Kremlin interference and other factors like racism and sexism was dismissed - and Maxine has been vocal about the impact of these other factors since the election. But I digress..

Yes, impeachment right now is impractical because Dems are in the minority - there was even a vote on it in the house which went NO.WHERE.

However, Impeachment should be the first matter of course when Dems take control of Congress. Especially since a Dem control of Congress would mean Maxine Waters becoming Chair of the Financial Services Committee, which I think will grant her the power to subpoena Trump's tax returns. So I'd urge Pelosi and Schumer to chill the fuck out on the tone policing.

[madville]

85. The establishment will be in full blown panic mode

If Bernie is leading a large primary field with about 30-35% of the vote. This is making me wonder how the media will treat him, seeing them fawn all over this "Democratic Socialist" newcomer reminds me how they will either make or break his chances if he runs again.....

[Orsino]

90. Pelosi's right, if a little undiplomatic.

It's one race, and one that had a tiny turn-out. As much as I enjoy seeing Establishment Dems goosed a bit, Cortez' win does not mean Bernie Was Right and Hillary Was Wrong. I hope it's a bellwether for some progressive change, but as Pelosi says, this is a big tent with many, may races ongoing.

So far, Cortez seems to be the sort of candidate I want representing us. Like, exactly.

[Caliman73]

99. She is likely correct.

Except now, the stories are going to be about the "brewing battle among 'the old guard' against the 'new breed' of Democrats" "Chaos and infighting among the Democrats as a shakeup occurs!"

Nancy could have just said another fact, "The Democratic Party has always been a diverse party which embraces a range of opinions and all genders, racial and ethnic groups. The voters of New York's 14th district made their choice and we will support that choice because we have to fight back against the horrible policies of Trump and the Republicans."

End of story, the press walks away sad that hair didn't get pulled.

[Caliman73]

98. We need to be cautious here...the media loves controversy.

I think that the media sets up the scenario to create controversy and that is something that irritates me about media. Nancy Pelosi however, did not do the situation any favors.

She should have simply said, the second part of the statement, "We have an array of genders, generations, geography, and opinions in our caucus and we are very proud of that.

I would have added, "The people of NY's 14th district made a choice and we will work to support their candidate in any way we can".

There. End of story. No controversy. Do NOT give the media what they want. Division is always better than unity for the media because no one is going to read a headline about how well the Democratic Party is bringing together young idealistic candidates and pragmatists to promote the Democratic vision for America. They want to see hair pulling and both Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez are giving it to them.

[populistdriven]

105. excellent point and explains my favorite line from the OP "Someone is coming off as tone deaf...

"Someone is coming off as tone deaf and it’s not the rookie. "

[JustAnotherGen]

107. Both of them 'stepped in it'

But you are right - Media is the key here.

Adding to your sentiments - they want a 'cat fight'. Makes for good ratings.

[RandySF]

104. The DCCC won 20 out of 22 races

Among districts they got involved in. And far more incumbents lost at this point in 1992.

[JustAnotherGen]

106. Ocasio-Cortez is being naive

Her message over the bridge and 30 miles west would have been an epic failure. In Lamb's district - the same.

This is why Jois and Jacob lost to Malinowski.

We aren't ALL one set of experiences in America. In a country this size - there will be no one size fits all solution.

AND - there should be NO ATTACKS on any sitting Democratic or any Democratic trying to oust a Republican by any other Democratic Candidates.

She needs to stop getting needled by the media.

She and Nancy are one - and that's that. If ran into her at a rally this weekend - I would say precisely that.

The right? They hate both of your guts. Tell the media to ask Trump the next they try to SOW division in the party.

[Yavin4]

109. Simply put, Pelosi does not understand the level of frustration with the status quo before Trump

and she doesn't understand the increased stress of Dem voters after Trump.

[GulfCoast66]

150. Oh I think she does.

Many ‘progressives’ do not understand how frustrating it is to run of the mill democrats in red or purple leaning districts when people who have no understanding of our local situation tell us how to win our districts.

I have no problem with the progressive candidate winning a primary in one of the most progressive districts in the country. You know, like the one Pelosi represents.

I have a huge problem with those progressives opposing sitting democrats in swing districts. The district next to me is represented by a fine Democratic Party member. Representative Soto. A dick head, so called progressive Grayson is challenging him in the primary. With support from ‘progressives’. If Soto loses the Primary we lose the seat. That is what Nancy Pelosi understands.

[Garrett78]

115. Much ado about nothing in order to sow division.

Pelosi rightly pointed out that election results in one district (where there had been substantial demographic changes) don't necessarily imply anything about the country as a whole. She was asked about NY-14 and commented on NY-14. Pelosi didn't say there aren't any other districts similar to NY-14.

Ocasio-Cortez rightly pointed out that there are some other districts with similar dynamics. Now, Ocasio-Cortez may think there are more such districts than there really are (after all, the vast majority of establishment-preferred candidates have been dominating). But to make this out to be a big fight between her and Pelosi is utterly ridiculous.

[Denis 11]

121. Go Alexandria

I think you are awesome.
I still have family in the Bronx, and think you represent our bourough wonderfully.
I hope their are more Dems like you in the wings.
Our party needs more people like you.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

131. Lots more, yes! Alexandria IS awesome...this is not your grandparent's Democratic Party anymore!!

[Denis 11]

166. Oops

She really is from Yorktown in Westchester, her family left Parkchester when she was 5.
Plus some Republican money apparently helped propel her victory.
I still believe she deserves a chance, I hope she succeeds.
The Dems need to appeal to the youth in America,
Crowley didn't keep a residence in his district and stayed full time in DC.
That's not good for the party.

[bdamomma]

122. that 28 yr.

old knows and hears the cries from the heartbeat of what Americans feel.

This is what you call grassroots.

[Tatiana]

128. Pelosi is keeping calm and moving on.

We can't nationalize that particular election.

However, it's really hard to argue against some change in leadership. The top 3 (Pelosi, Hoyer, and Clyburn) are all in their 70's, if I'm not mistaken. We need to add some younger talent to the leadership team.

[fallout87]

135. Sorry to burst her bubble, but yes.. it was just one

district. She won with 16k votes to his 12k. 16k votes in a country of 100 million voters.

[DonCoquixote]

138. not that we should assume it is a repeat. but

If pelosi's point was supposed to be "let's all get behind whoever wins the primary", this was not the way to show it. Yes there are still some people who want anyone to the left of Hillary to go away, but if they WON, that is just something to be tossed into the bucket, as did bernie when he told people to VOTE FOR HILLARY when he lost.

Many people are going to have to accept folks like Joe Machin and Heidi Heitkamp as we are HOPING that they resist the next Scotus pick..(and here is hoping they do), but if we can deal with those two, what is so awful about supporting someone who is on the left. It is about WINNING.

[Garrett78]

143. Pelosi's point was that the results in NY-14 don't have implications for the nation as a whole.

Simple as that. In other words, one shouldn't read too much into the choice voters made in NY-14 (and that would be true even if turnout had been greater than 5%). And Pelosi is right about that. She didn't say there are no other districts like NY-14, though some seem desperate to misinterpret what she said. She said NY-14 is one district (out of thousands) and that we can't extrapolate from the results in any one district.

Just as Ocasio-Cortez is right that there are other districts with similar dynamics as NY-14.

It's also true that establishment-preferred candidates have been dominating, and that NY-14 is an exception to the rule.

Some are trying to suggest that Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez are engaged in some great dispute, but there's no there there.

[DFW]

158. Spot on

Pelosi wasn't telling people to disregard NY 14 because Ocasio-Cortez won with 13000 votes to 9000. Pelosi was telling people that demographics are different all around the country, and she is spot on. In most districts in Texas, a guy like Crowley would have been too "libbrul" to be elected dog catcher, let alone a long-standing "establishment" Congressman.

Anyone who thinks a primary vote in the middle of New York City where 5% of the eligible voters voted has just set a trend from sea to shining sea is deluding themselves. Tip O'Neill was so right: "All politics is local." In most districts of Oklahoma, Ocasio-Cortez would have gotten less votes than she has fingers on her hand in a general election. As it is, she is all but guaranteed to be a member of the House of Representatives next January. Each district has to be seen for what and where it is.

[sarcasmo]

154. Wake up call for the D triple C.

[ucrdem]

157. The irony is that she basically ran on identity politics while deploring identity politics.

At the end of the day what exactly was accomplished besides swapping out a powerful but plain-wrapped Dem for a more glamorous but less powerful one? It seems like a waste of resources directed to a primary that was completely unnecessary. Which is the definition of vanity politics.



JMHO, YMMV.

[whathehell]

171. She is correct.

The sour grapes here are incredible..