AOC: "There's a secret little word used to dismiss political candidates: 'viability.'"

[bigtree]

NYT: Ocasio-Cortez’s Next Task: Empowering Other Female Outsiders to Win
After Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s victory, female outsider candidates have shared volunteer lists, fund-raising tips and moral support.

thread:

Link to tweet

[ffr]

1. In the KGOP circle, unviable candidates would be termed outsiders, which is a good thing.

Outsiders tend not to be experienced or hold all the qualities and experience needed for the job they're seeking. That would gain republicon or Tea Party votes.

Not so for democrats. We had a candidate in HRC that was overqualified to the point that the right was redefining her experience as a negative, to their unqualified unviable candidate tRump.

Viability is no longer a criteria hurdle for democratic candidates. If there's a republicon challenger, any and all democrats should get the nod enthusiastically.

[bigtree]

2. kick

[bigtree]

4. this is a baffling take on what she said

...I don't see ANY attacks in AOC's response to the NYT article, much less even a criticism of Democrats as you claim.

I'm trying to figure out who 'Ortiz' is, guessing you mean Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is clearly DEFENDING HERSELF against charges from some that her candidacy (or other women's candidacies) isn't 'viable.'

I accept her belief that this is being used unfairly to try and limit the appeal and scope of candidacies. Ultimately, she says, what makes these candidates 'viable' is 'our individual choice to believe in them.'

That's what she said, not the ridiculous hodgepodge of projection you allege here. I mean, we can see for ourselves she's not trying to 'turn liberal into a dirty word' or any thing of the sort.

How bizarre. I wonder if folks here realize these ad hominem attacks on AOC just make her no nonsense messaging more appealing, not less.

[Hortensis]

6. "FOR MY ENTIRE RACE I WASN'T 'VIABLE' ENOUGH

FOR ESTABLISHED GROUPS OR PEOPLE"

"I WANT THESE WOMEN TO AT LEAST HAVE A SHOT, TO BE SEEN AS LEGITIMATE."

Her own words are capped for you, bigtree. You want to believe in and make excuses for her. i understand that.

But I, as part of our great diverse Democratic Party, am among the "established people" being accused of trying to discriminate against women and minorities because I disapprove of her badmouthing of Democrats.

And doubling down on that by trying to smear me and my party as racist and sexist oppressors is NOT okay.

No excuses for this extremely unprincipled behavior. I won't bother to read them.

[mcar]

9. It's how I read it, too

AOC has great momentum. Why isn't she using it to attack Republicans?

[bigtree]

11. how is this an attack on Democrats? The primary is over

...this is clearly, in response to the article, her view of the way forward to the general election.

It's almost entirely a declaration of her own potential for success. There was undeniable skepticism of her ability to win. That translated into less dollars, less endorsement from political leaders, less exposure. Despite all of that, she prevailed.

That's what she's declaring here. Against undeniable odds, relatively unknown, unseasoned, non-traditional candidates can win, if they persist, much like Ocasio-Cortez did in her primary bid. Why deny her that? Why the resentment? What she says here is damn good advice, and I hope these other women running (and many others) follow in her path.

Why strain and distort what she said to attack this woman? What's really going on here? I want to know. Wtf is going on here? All in the name of defending the Democratic party? This is a sure way to drive people away, especially her supporters who we desperately need in November.

[lapucelle]

13. Actually the NYS primaries are not over.

The second round for state offices is September 19. June 26 was for federal offices only.

I'd like to see AOC focus on taking down her Republican opponent as well as on promoting her preferred Democratic September primary candidates.

[bigtree]

14. and why are we presuming she isn't?

...and why are so many here focused on attacking this Democratic candidate like she's superfluous?

Her own primary is over.

When did it become improper to help other Democratic candidates over the line??

The stretch to criticize her for this is remarkably ill-conceived.

I mean, on one hand, you remind that there are still races open. On the other you suggest she needs to move on. It's clear she can't win with some folks. That's unfortunate and extremely self-defeating in the long run.

[Hortensis]

17. Your OP is the answer to that. +1000 to Lapucelle.

[lapucelle]

22. Actually, I said I'd like to see her do both.

I'd especially like to see AOC out here on Long Island where we have two "unviable" Democratic challengers facing entrenched Trump-supporting Republican incumbents Peter King and Lee Zeldin. We need all the help we can get in those races.

And on a side note, as we progress through all our primaries, I hope that all defeated Democratic candidates show the grace and class of Joe Crowley and immediately support and work to elect the Democratic GE candidates.

[bigtree]

39. from what I can see, she is doing both.

....I've listened to several interviews, and what she actually does more is define herself, like she's doing here, but more extensively, outlining her policy and calling out the problems and abuses she intends to address in office.

There is a definite strain to these criticisms which I don't think folks here would welcome for their own candidates.

[lapucelle]

43. I haven't heard her endorse any of our Democratic congressional candidates here on LI yet.

So far from what I've seen, her endorsements both in primaries and in GE races have been limited to Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress candidates, and Democratic socialists.

We could use some of that energy out here on LI where we are working to unseat powerful Republican incumbents.

[bigtree]

113. I wonder if those candidates would be amenable as you to an endorsement

...from AOC.

I'd assume those she's actively, visibly supported are a willing party to that endorsement. I know sometimes pols call out candidates and declare their kinship, but I'm not sure the candidates you favor have spoken with her about that, and the resulting association may not be on their agenda - same in the converse, it may not suit her own campaign for any number of reasons.

Something to look for.

[lapucelle]

115. We have a strategy meeting this week for our congressional races.

I'm definitely going to bring the topic up.

[George II]

25. That's a very big factor on why the turnout last week was a mere 11%. Many voters were confused....

.....thinking that the Primary was in September, not realizing that there are two in New York this year.

[heaven05]

84. bam!

I would also like to see this.

[bigtree]

92. maybe you need to look beyond these segmented posts

Last edited Sun Jul 8, 2018, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)

...it's silly to act as if the entirety of her campaign is contained in the handful of posts here.

If you want to hear more from her go and find it. There are several excellent interviews around. Find them and promote them.

Kinda skeptical that you actually want to hear anything from her, given how strident your criticisms have been, or that she could say anything you'll agree to here, but, whatever.

Interesting conundrum you present, though. If I don't see it on DU, it must not exist, is that it?

And, btw, I'm not in charge of finding AOC statements and declarations against republicans for anyone here. If you really want her to promote your agenda, then contact the campaign. If you want to see more of AOC attacking republicans, go find those instances (there isn't really a question that they exist in numerous forums and interviews), and promote them here.


...like this one:

bam!

[heaven05]

98. I won't really

Last edited Sun Jul 8, 2018, 02:17 PM - Edit history (2)

waste time with this person. She is part of the fuutre of our Party, if she makes it to D.C NOT THE future of our Party. Winning over the apathetic, whining, fefe hurt voters who sat out the 2016 General election and hurt our Party in 2016, and now as we see our country, nationally and internationally, is my focus 2018, 2020, along with many others. That's it.

No more wasting my time with insignificant issues like the importance of AOC or Socialists to our Party. The are a minor faction in our BIG TENT of liberal and progressive voters. How many times must I say it? Minor faction.

[bigtree]

100. that's just shocking

...I'll try and recover myself from this surprising revelation of yours.

Btw, I didn't read past your first sentence.

[lapucelle]

34. I think it's incorrect to say

"this is clearly, in response to the article, her view of the way forward to the general election."

Two out of the three candidates OAC mentions (Zephyr Teachout and Cori Bush) still have upcoming Democratic primaries.

[bigtree]

40. you can't have it both ways

..you can't credibly demand she move on (she clearly has, listen to some of her interviews), and then try to make an issue that the primaries are still going there.

Her primary is over. She's talking here about the odds against her, how she overcame those, and how she intends to proceed in the future. She does have a general election to win next.

Apparently, according to critics here, she should ignore the fact that as a newcomer, a young candidate, against an incumbency, there were unfair questions about her viability which were really just a challenge to do better, which she has. Bringing other Democratic candidates up behind her is the essence of what we should be doing politically, not the subject of scorn and acrimony.

Did you even read what she said about those women? You act as if she didn't already point that out. I'm not surprised to see you step right over that to criticize her. Step back and look at what you're asking here. Most of it Ocasio-Cortez is already doing, the other negative stuff you're accusing her of actually deserves our support.

[lapucelle]

78. Please stop mischaracterizing what I've said.

Actually the NYS primaries are not over.
The second round for state offices is September 19. June 26 was for federal offices only.

I'd like to see AOC focus on taking down her Republican opponent as well as on promoting her preferred Democratic September primary candidates.

This is neither a criticism nor a "demand to move on".

I'm not sure what you mean by "you can't have it both ways", but Democratic candidates have managed to both support other Democrats and fight Republican opponents for decades. Any suggestion that this is beyond AOC's skill set is frankly insulting.

[heaven05]

85. excellent retort

it is a tactic typical of DS. Created by their mentor..... confusion, misdirection, distraction, diversion. You hit the nail on the head, with a sledgehammer

[bigtree]

89. I don't think it's at all accurate that she isn't engaged in 'fighting republicans'

...I've listened to several interviews, including one on Univision, and she has a broad based approach to campaigning which is mostly focused on defining the issues, her policies, and her intentions in office if she's elected.

Keeping focused on what she intends to do, as opposed to a back and forth with her opponent is what I like best. Most candidates get lost in a briar patch of distraction and diversion.

Interestingly enough, her strongest retort to the right has been the subject of scorn and acrimony in threads posted here, much like this series of remarks has been distorted into some attack on Democrats by several posters.

I should be forgiven for being skeptical of folks in her district who haven't yet heard Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 'fighting republicans.' I have to wonder where you get your news from. I hope it isn't from segmented posts like this one on DU.

Maybe you can contact her campaign with your concerns. You're much closer to them than I am, and you'd get more attention, I'm sure, being in her district.

I'm really not sure now why you posted that the primaries aren't over. For Ocasio-Cortez, they are. For others still in play, her advice would seem a good fit.

[lapucelle]

95. My news sources are reliable and varied.

I live in the NYC metropolitan area and am very active in the Nassau County Democratic Party Women's Caucus.

As for the "chatter" that masquerades as news, I am disappointed (but not surprised) at the focus on the lucrative "Democrats divided" narrative that some in the media are flogging. It is a mistake for anyone on our side to play into it.

Hopefully going forward, AOC will come out with strong support for the LI Democratic congressional challengers who are fighting to unseat powerful Republican incumbents, as well as continue articulating her support for her preferred Democratic candidates in both the remaining NYS primaries and in elections around the country.

[bigtree]

96. I went and found a good interview for you (by no means the only one)

...she says a good deal about republicans here (albeit in response to this news person's questions.

I listened to this all the way through...

[lapucelle]

102. She did fine. N/T

[bigtree]

104. thanks for hanging in there with me, lapucelle

...maybe I can make your interest the focus of posts from now on.

If I post AOC, I'll try and find instances where she has republicans in her crosshairs. It's really enmeshed in everything she's running on.

That's partly the times we live in, but it's also a great deal of why she took up this race, to confront and set right the current attacks on the country by the republican party and president.

This is a traditional Democratic candidacy, with much passion and energy. I'm very grateful for your vote and support.

[lapucelle]

114. I've spent the past 40 years of my life working for Democratic candidates.

As I've been saying over and over, it is imperative that we remove Republicans from Congress and replace them with Democrats. That should be the focus now and our most important task going forward.

[NY_20th]

110. Go Liuba!

[lapucelle]

111. We have a strategy meeting this week.

[JustAnotherGen]

120. Democratics Dovided

Nothing to do with subject of OP - yeah. The media in the tri-state area is trying to push that bullshit. I'm over it. Re: Strong support for other candidates -

Only in the right races. She w would kill Malinowskis campaign and he would kill hers. In her district- an immigrant from Poland, white male, ivy league educated that worked for Obama from what I understand? Would be awful.

In our district - Clinton won - but so did Lance. Districts that Clinton won (there are 24) need to be left to run to their special demographics. The Trump supporters in her district are most likely just getting by.

The Trump voters in our district cannot be won. They don't listen to MSNBC in their Porche on their evening commute.

[bigtree]

10. even with all caps you're still misreading it, misrepresenting what Ocasio-Cortez said

Last edited Sat Jul 7, 2018, 05:22 PM - Edit history (2)

...she said NOTHING critical about the Democratic party.

She was addressing those who have/had doubts about 'outsiders' and non-traditional candidates' ability to win. She's talking about how she overcame those false perceptions and prevailed.

NONE of what you wrote came out of her mouth or from her keyboard.

It's just bizarre how you're substituting your words for her own to make your completely unfounded claim.

There is nothing wrong at all with what I/you highlighted (in caps). It's not directed at the party, and it's not even a criticism, so I'm still baffled by this response from you.

What she said wasn't 'unprincipled' or even wrong. How you took all of that animus you wrote from what she actually said... this can't be for real.


Like I said, this kind of hyperbolic, wrongheaded response to this Democratic candidate is a complete turn-off to whatever you're selling. You may well regard me as some kind of enemy to whatever you want politically, but you're not doing anything positive here twisting Ocasio-Cortez's words to attack her.

It's almost like folks forgot that there are real people at the other end of these posts, this one a lifelong Democrat...

"Your attempt to strip me of my family, my story, my home, and my identity is exemplary of how scared you are of the power of all four of those things."

[George II]

28. She made those comments a few days after the Democratic primary....

....where she ran against a Democrat. So who could she be talking about other than Democrats?

As pointed out several times, Crowley was excellent in his concession. Democrats can learn from that.

[Hortensis]

29. The only truly mannered people in elective office

these days are from among our Democrats, something their Republican colleagues often make me think of. Of course, the consideration and respect for the dignity of others that underlies all real manners comes more naturally to most liberals.

“ I look forward to supporting her and all Democrats this November…This is why we must come together. We will only be able to stop Donald Trump and the Republican Congress by working together as a united Democratic Party.” ~ Congressman Joe Crowley

His colleague Senator Sepulveda has invited Ms. Ocasio-Ortiz to join the Bronx Democratic Party, and both will be helping her defeat her Republican opponent this fall. Shouldn't be a problem, but I'm guessing the Repubs have been all of a sudden wishing they weren't running a token newbie of their own, an economics professor.

Wonder what Joe Crowley will be doing for the two years his elective career, at least, is on hold?

[George II]

36. You know what's interesting is that Crowley was the Representative for that district...

....for only the last five years. The 14th District has been redrawn four times since the 1980s. Prior to Crowley the 14th District Representative was Democrat Carolyn Maloney for twenty years (1993-2013)

[AtomicKitten]

60. Christ you can't even get her name right.

Ms. Ocasio-Ortiz

Classic sign of disrespect and disregard for someone. You were corrected upthread and just ignored it. Her name is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

You have erected quite the strawman composed of things Alexandria did not say in your quite embarrassingly obvious display of attacking her here.

[Hortensis]

77. Didn't ignore, missed.

I may have been making this mistake for a while, so thanks for pointing it out. Again apparently. I confess, when responses show people haven't read my post or are twisting its meaning, I don't exactly study those responses.

Actually, AtomicKitten, my problem is with people whose partisanship causes them to deny and support bad behavior. Right or left doesn't matter. The profound, self-deluding dishonesty generated by hyperpartisanship has become a huge national problem.

Maybe apply the same standards to Ms. Ortiz and to Ms. Duckworth or Ms. Pelosi? Try out a statement under various names? If it's not okay for someone we don't like, it's probably not okay for someone we do either.

[melman]

119. So then you go ahead and do it again

It's obviously deliberate. Why are you doing that?

[heaven05]

86. nothing is embarrassing

about the posts you are railing against. Nothing. Or untrue.

[lapucelle]

31. Zephyr Teachout has been a viable candidate in New York politics for years.

I'm not sure why AOC included her in the group. Similarly, I'm a bit bewildered by the "not legitimate" framing of the narrative.

[bigtree]

42. you can't be serious

Zephyr Teachout @ZephyrTeachout
Today I am proud to endorse the gutsy, hopeful, grassroots campaign of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for Congress. 31 May 2018

[lapucelle]

45. I am serious. I've voted for her. N/T

[bigtree]

48. well that makes your criticisms all the more baffling and contradictory

...should she support them, or not?

Never mind, I'm not seeing your logic.

[lapucelle]

51. I'm not sure what you think I said, why you are framing it as "criticism",

or in what way it is contradictory to my having voted for Teachout. Here are my actual words:

I'd like to see AOC focus on taking down her Republican opponent as well as on promoting her preferred Democratic September primary candidates.

I hope she finds the time in the coming months to strongly endorse the LI Democratic congressional candidates who are facing powerful Republican incumbents.

[bigtree]

106. this is where I got turned around

Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2018, 03:04 PM - Edit history (1)

...I mistook you as saying you voted for AOC.

So much for my reading comprehension. I am very sorry for being so defensive and wrongheaded about your posts.

[Demsrule86]

57. I don't recall Zephyr ever winning much.

[heaven05]

83. +++ nt.

[NY_20th]

109. You are reading far too much into that statement.

There were no accusations of sexism or racism.

She's obviously proud of the campaign she ran, and it's true that most people didn't believe she could win.

[demmiblue]

5. What a bizarre conclusion. n/t

[Hortensis]

7. She knows what she's doing.

She trained under Sanders after all.

?uuid=d49ba840-2de5-11e7-95e3-001cc448aede

[demmiblue]

8. Oh, okay.

[bigtree]

12. she also worked as a staffer to Ted Kennedy on immigration issues

...went to Boston University, where she studied economics and international relations. Went to work 10 years ago in Ted Kennedy’s foreign affairs/immigration constituent office while in school.


here's a good example for you to follow:

At his election-night party at a restaurant in Jackson Heights, (her defeated Democratic opponent) Joe Crowley thrummed a guitar.

“This is for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,” he said as the band struck up Bruce Springsteen’s Born to Run.

watch:

Link to tweet

[Demsrule86]

58. In 2008, Ms. Cortez would have been 18 years old.

She went to BU that year according to her biography. Ted Kennedy died in 2009.

[bigtree]

99. the '10 years' was from the cut-and paste. That's probably why you can't place her there.

...the rest is in several bios so, you're way off if you're suggesting she didn't work for him.

[Lordquinton]

49. Trained under a true progressive

She'll do the party proud!

[AtomicKitten]

52. Wow. Really?

[Voltaire2]

108. What is your point with that comment and that picture?

[mountain grammy]

121. Disturbing!

I'd say more, but there's rules. At least I thought there were.

[melman]

15. This is nonsense

You're just looking for any excuse to trash her.

[Hortensis]

16. Melman, seriously, I didn't start that way.

I wanted to ascribe her behavior to her age and ignorance. I still do. But after just a little more exposure to her I think it may be more realistic to hope she's a one-term anomaly. Not everyone who manages to get elected to congress has what it takes to be a good representative.

But maybe these behaviors, very much including her 2016 Sanders period, are just mistakes of youth, plus the stresses and media provocation that come with being thrown unexpectedly into this situation. Maybe she has it in her to join our battle to contain the rising authoritarian threat from the right. Her district will see.

But, as with all of us, she's either fighting against fascism or enabling. There's no middle ground right now. This isn't about little stuff like the ACA versus "Medicare for all."

[melman]

18. Please

Save this routine for someone who might buy it because I really don't. Your posts make it more than clear what your intentions are here.

ffs you just not-too-subtly accused her of trying to aid Trump.

Perhaps you'll deny it but clearly that's what posting that picture was meant to imply.

[Hortensis]

20. She's not trying to help the right.

Don't miscast what I'm saying to make me an enemy. Republicans are the enemy.

That any aid she might be giving is inadvertent is a huge problem. It doesn't have to be intentional to make her a wrong person for the job she's being catapulted into. Frankly, intent doesn't even matter compared to action.

Many are always too wrapped up in their own ideology to understand what's happening, and her hostile engagements with her own supposed party suggests she's one of those "too blind to see." Maybe she'll still grow beyond that, perhaps that's not possible.

We don't know. But we need people in office who are too busy fighting to save our democracy to trouble-make within the party, or even to lie awake in the middle of the night worrying with the rest of us.

[melman]

26. You said

'she knows what she's doing'

[lapucelle]

33. "All politics are local, each district is different,

candidates need to appeal to the people who will be voting in their elections.

I look forward to being a strong voice for the constituents in my district while working side by side with other Democrats in Congress."

A statement like that might help to tamp down the media "divided Democrats" narrative.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. You're just accusing her of calling Democrats misogynist and racist

I mean, that's a perfectly normal thing for a DUer to say about a Democratic candidate, isn't it? You think a Democratic candidate has to join you. You seem to be placing your personal feelings above the primary result that has just happened. And anyone disagreeing with you is aiding fascists, even if they were chosen by Democrats.

What are you going to call the new party you're setting up in your image?

[Hortensis]

23. Trump wants to invade Venezuela. And may well.

How's he going to react, there or elsewhere, to being humiliated by North Korea? Do you have young relatives you don't want to die stealing petroleum on another continent? It won't be Democrats who send them down there to try to occupy and hold in the face of hostile...hoards of vermin, as Trump has called them, from all over Central and South America.

He wasn't joking about breaking multiple laws to commit unthinkable, vicious atrocities against refugee families to please himself and his racist base. He did it. And he's not only targeting other groups for persecution, it's already begun. Many more children will lose their parents.

Tuck that into your musings. The days when any of us could afford the luxury of silly squabbling over how fast we should achieve universal healthcare and who are the True Progressives are over.

[demmiblue]

30. All I have to say is 'wow'...

to the response to your post. There has been a lot of this today... so completely bizarre and off the rails.

I think there are other issues going on.

[George II]

37. The implication I get is that she thinks many New Yorkers consider ....

....female and/or minority candidates not "viable", which is entirely untrue.

New York (State) Congressional delegation has 17 members in Congress. Of them there are only seven white males. There are three white females, two black males, two Hispanic males, one black female, an Asian female, and a Hispanic female.

It's clear that to New Yorkers ALL candidates are "viable" and their policy positions take precedence over gender and race.

[JI7]

53. and a female US Senator

[George II]

81. Yes. She was appointed to the Senate by a black Governor, replacing female Senator Hillary Clinton.

New Yorkers don't buy that "identity politics" BS.

[melman]

55. The 'implication' may be what you get but it is nowhere to be found in her actual words.

How ridiculous.

[George II]

68. So who is it that claimed her candidacy wasn't "viable" if it wasn't Democrats/Democratic voters?

[bigtree]

101. you know the landscape favored the incumbent. This isn't a mystery, George.

...questions about her viability came primarily from the media. Not coincidental, George that she's responding to a news article in this instance.

Relatively young, relatively unseasoned candidate who was working at the time she decided to run as a bartender. Are you really suggesting the only skepticism came from members of the party? This is a specious argument.

Her campaign had a distinct disadvantage in funding. That's one of the things she's describing here as surmounting, the lack of the major funding her opponent was privileged to receive. Questions of viability come from all quarters of a candidacy. This isn't something controversial or surprising.

The back and forth about it is absurd. That's as good a word as any to describe this latest strident criticism of AOC.

[George II]

107. I never saw any "media" questions about her viability, and yes, she's "responding" (not really....

....assuming you're referring to the NYT article) to a POSITIVE article about her which doesn't contain the word "viable" or hint at it.

Unfortunately since the primary she's criticized more Democrats (some prominent) than republicans. That's not the way to forge unity or gain support from other Democrats.

[bigtree]

112. this is specious

...it doesn't even ring true.

I've been observing and participating in campaigns for 40 years. To suggest that only Democrats would question her viability, and suggesting that the media was positive, is absurd. The fact that this article may be favorable doesn't mean a thing. She was responding to an article in the media, and there's nothing at all in her remarks that says or intimates 'Democrats.'

More to the point, trying to twist what she says in this series of remarks into some attack or oblique criticism of Democrats is a really stupid exercise. I've rarely seen more foolishness here.

Let's all pretend that the doors just swung right open for this candidate, from all quarters. Let's pretend that women don't face persistent questions from all quarters about their viability. Let's pretend that this wasn't a relative newcomer, an outsider, a nontraditional candidate. Let's pretend that the only obstacle to her campaign was from actual Democrats, not poseurs and imposters looking to stoke divisions. Let's pretend that she wasn't fighting that impression from potential voters, Democrats, independents, and the rest.

Let's pretend, George, that questions about her viability aren't still an issue for some as she moves forward.

The assertions she makes here are correct and valid. Picking at them to make it into a fight with the Democratic party, which she hasn't declared, not here or anywhere else, is specious and inflammatory.

[George II]

117. I said that I haven't seen any media questions....

...about her viability. What article is it that she's responding to, she doesn't refer to an article in any of those tweets?

If, as you say, the assertions she makes are correct surely someone can give us an example, or at least direct us to the article that she is responding to.

Lacking that, my comments certainly aren't specious.

Thanks.

[bigtree]

133. no, you base your comments on nothing but your own observations

...like you're some font of media accounts.

No one needs to find a thing for you George. If you want to believe that AOC was referencing, attacking the Democratic party in these very correct series of observations, do that.

I'll continue, with just as much evidence presented for my opinion as your own, and call it specious, based on common sense and the fact that it's ridiculous to imagine or claim that only the Democratic party had and were actively positing questions about this newcomer's viability. That rings true on just the face of this candidate's bio and experience, as well as to the incumbency she was challenging.

It also is quite true that there will be questions from some about her ability in the general election, however unsupported by fact or reason. If she responds to that impression, sensitive folks like you, who want to believe she's attacking them or the Democratic party will just have to bear up to it. I have zero sympathy for such navel-gazing foolishness.

[George II]

135. As do many of the people on DU, a discussion site. However, since Cortez has made...

...a comment about political candidates being dismissed for not being "viable", surely that was based on something, wouldn't you think?

I read through all the tweets in the OP as well as the New York Times article referenced in one of them. Don't see a single case of a candidate being dismissed for not being "viable", nor do I even see the words "viable" or "viability" or any form of the word in the NYT article.

Again, that claim has to be based on something. Unfortunately no one seems to be able to say upon what it is based.

So, where is it?

[bigtree]

136. if George doesn't see it on DU, it must not exist

...

Why would anyone do such a silly thing for you? Believe what you want.

[demmiblue]

19. Complete nonsense.

People can't pass a chance to try to divide.

Same people ad nauseam. I wonder what their purpose/end game is?

Bottom line: we need to stop the ridiculous infighting and vote the arseholes out. They aren't helping.

[Squinch]

27. I agree. We're not supposed to consider the viability of a candidate? Teachout is great.

But she WASN'T viable. It wouldn't have made a difference if we threw money at her.

OC needs to stop this. She has an important voice. She is guaranteed her seat. She needs to stop shooting into the tent, and start campaigning against Republicans.

[bigtree]

38. she's clearly saying reconsider notions of viability

..and be more proactive about it.

She's saying viability is a perception which can be altered by effort. No where did she say we shouldn't consider viability. She says it's a subjective notion and she's correct. People once said Obama wasn't viable. People claimed Hillary wasn't viable as a candidate at one time.

I'm really surprised people are taking the most negative definition here and using it to disparage what she said. The animus toward this woman for asserting herself (successfully) over odds that we all know existed for her as an unseasoned candidate running against an incumbent is baffling.

The attacks here on Ocasio-Cortez for expressing that with confidence are simply stunning.

[Squinch]

88. I'd like to see her begin to use her voice to campaign against republicans.

[bigtree]

93. that's pretty much what she's doing

...I'm curious why you're assuming she's not?

It's just not credible to me to posit that she isn't using her voice to campaign against republicans.'

It's a little absurd.


WaPo: A failed Republican attack on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez offers a lesson for Democrats

[Squinch]

94. Sorry. I'm mixing this thread with the other on the Common Dreams article that quotes OC

criticizing Duckworth because Duckworth voiced a self-evident fact.

That criticism was unfortunate. I'd like to see OC naming republicans and criticizing them.

This is the thread where she criticizes Duckworth.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10840773

[bigtree]

97. here's an interview where she's doing just that

...and I'd like to think that she can get credit for addressing republicans as well as any other candidate I've seen, or better.

This is by no means the only interview or the only time she's criticized republicans. I watched this all the way through:

In this clip, she begins by defending Crowley in a most gracious and respectful way which completely contradicts the notion that she's running against the Democratic party.

[Demsrule86]

59. I agree...she won and I want her to succeed.

[Wwcd]

79. Calling it what it is!

Thank you

[heaven05]

82. true this!

[brooklynite]

24. ...says the candidate who doesn't have to appeal to non-Democrats.

[lapucelle]

32. Very astute observation. N/T

[Mc Mike]

35. The repugs putting that useless failure turd into office has eliminated all

credible complaints about viability or competency.

A cockroach is more viable and competent than the guy they're so proud of and supportive of, and he's doing nothing but destroying and failing, 24/7/365.

[JI7]

41. Not really. I totally believed in Obama but that didn't make him viable in west virginia

Hillary won the district AOC won in NY also but that doesn't make her viable in west virginia .

[bigtree]

44. actually, questions about Obama's viability weren't restricted to his winning in WVa

...nor should he have abandoned the idea of competing and winning there, not at the start of his candidacy, anyway.

Such a strain to criticize here. What gives?

[JI7]

46. He didn't compete there seriously. He knew he wasn't viable in WV

[bigtree]

47. I never heard him say such a self-defeating thing during his campaign

...Obama competed for the votes in WVa.

This doesn't back up your criticism at all. His campaign was one of our country's most powerful retorts to questions of viability that we've ever had.

[JI7]

50. No, he didn't seriously compete there

[AtomicKitten]

54. Traditionally viability has been measured in dollars.

But that has been redefined. Sanders proved the corporate fluffers' knife-to-a-gunfight rationale false by sustaining a presidential campaign without taking corporate cash. Alexandria is now helping lesser known candidates - many of them female - by sharing volunteer lists, fund-raising tips and moral support. She proved she was viable without taking corporate cash. This will serve to give voice to people-powered candidates who will serve the people.

[lapucelle]

80. I'd like to see candidates request donation disclosure from dark money groups

whose help they accept. I think the assumption that dark money is "people powered" is dangerous.

[JNelson6563]

56. Ok but after how many losses

Can we break out that scary word after? We had a candidate appear out of nowhere and run for state House. A tepid Dem, rather skittish about it. Full on Bernie bro when that wave hit.

I didn't think she was viable her first run and she lost. And her second. Then her third.

She's now running for county com. seat. She might win, if she manages to stop offending lots of people.

Yeah, viability is a legit thing, like it or not.

[betsuni]

62. "Hillary folks"?

LOL.

[betsuni]

64. Junk food has nothing of substance to say.

[TCJ70]

69. Betsuni doesn't mean junk food...

...it means, roughly, “nothing”. Hmmm...

[betsuni]

74. It has to do with, like, existentialism.

Being and Nothingness. Hmmmmm. I don't think you would understand.

[Cha]

66. You didn't say anything of "substance".

[Cha]

65. Hillary WON.. the damn russians Rigged trump in..

with assistance by stein and Sarandon bullshite 3rd party LIES.. plus voter suppression and the M$$$M.

[TCJ70]

67. I don't deal in alternative facts. She lost. She got more votes...

But in our screwed up system that doesn’t always mean you win.

[Cha]

70. That's reality.

[TCJ70]

71. Simple question: Is she president?

Because all I’ve seen the past year and a half is coverage of some imposter they’re calling President Trump. Someone better get a hold of Hillary and tell her the Oval Office is waiting for her!

[Cha]

72. Deny it all you want.. it doesn't change

what actually went down.

[Hortensis]

87. Agree. America chose Hillary, got Trump.

We need to remember that in these dark days. We the People voted to elect Obama twice and then Hillary. We chose liberal, progressive, enlightened governance. Those were our true choices and who most of us are.

[Cha]

91. Well put, Hortensis! "America chose Hillary" and

got a Fraud.

And there are those who deny this vehemently.. of course the most vehement is Fraud himself.

We chose liberal, progressive, enlightened governance. Those were our true choices and who most of us are.

YES!

[oasis]

73. Some can't resist coming out of left field to take a dig at Hillary.

But at least we have those here who will immediately set the record straight.

Thanks, Cha for not allowing nonsense to go unchecked.

[Cha]

76. Yeah, an Ignorant one. Those pesky FACTS don't deter them..

BREAKING: Senate Intelligence Committee backs assessment of Russia election meddling

snip//

The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday backed the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to aid President Donald Trump and is continuing its efforts to undermine U.S. democracy.

The finding that reveal Russia meddled in far more extensive ways than previously known is yet another strong rebuke to Trump and many of his allies who continue to cast doubt on the finding from the intelligence community that Moscow carried out an operation to help his candidacy and hurt Hillary Clinton.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10142100777

oasis

[ehrnst]

90. So why do you think that Russia was backing Bernie?

As we recently heard via the Mueller investigation. (and no, that's not re-fighting the 2016 primary. That's bringing up recent revelations about Russian interference in the election)

Maybe way people, not just Democrats, found her way more likeable than the alternative.

I always find it interesting when Sanders supporters rush to dismiss actual vote totals.

[ck4829]

75. K&R

[heaven05]

103. really

[Wwcd]

105. The other secret little word is "ESTABLISHMENT"

There’s a secret little word used to dismiss political candidates: “viability.”

There's another secret little word to dismiss political candidates Ms Cortez, it was used throuthout the 2016 campaign & still today to dismiss certain candidates:

The other secret little word is "ESTABLISHMENT"

Explain the difference.
Thank you

[lapucelle]

116. It is interesting that the only other democratic contenders she has actively

supported are Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress candidates, and Democratic Socialists.

I'd love to see her step over the threshold and boldly support all Democratic candidates in our common goal to win back the Congress. It might help to turn out the "uninspired" in other states and districts.

[AtomicKitten]

122. It makes sense since they support the same issues.

Progressives support issues including, for instance:
1. Medicare For All
2. Free tuition state colleges
3. $15 minimum wage tied to inflation
4. Criminal justice reform
5. Legalization of marijuana
6. Progressive imigration reform
7. Get money out of politics
8. Etc.

Then at the other end of the tent are the ConservaDems who frequently vote with the Republicans, recently in favor of tax cuts for the rich and hollowing out bank regulations. I'd be hard pressed to stand next to much less cheer on that mess.

Then there are the squishy centrists, the so-called moderates who as far as I can tell rationalize and make excuses for falling short of progressive goals in favor of pro-corporate policy with a lot of money changing hands and occasionally superslow incrementalism.

The Big Tent is vast and it's unreasonable to expect all Democrats to be on the same page. The Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress and Democratic Socialists support Alexandria O-C - especially on getting money out of politics, accepting no corporate PAC money, and the partial list of issues posted above.

Progressives are for the most part on the same page, and the moderates and conservative Democrats on theirs. They don't believe in the same things, have their own cheering section, should be allowed to try to elect as many of their own to promote their agenda, and may the best faction win.

[Wwcd]

123. ConservaDems?? Is that the new "secret little word"?

How time flies. Seems like just yesterday the secret little word was "ESTABLISHMENT"

ConservaDem.

Glad I'm just a regular Democrat

[lapucelle]

125. Brand New Congress ran a Republican in Arkansas,

but I guess that's different.

[Wwcd]

126. Well that was gosh darned American of them isn't it

Considering the nature of what the Republican Party stands for today, Brand New Congress has thus revealed themselves.

They better not be calling themselves Democrats!

They are not

[AtomicKitten]

140. The basic criteria is they align with Sanders' platform.

If you're interested in informing yourself, you can read about it here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_New_Congress

[Wwcd]

143. Well now THAT explains even more about who & & why the

Sanders camp is about.


With friends like these...ya know?

The hidden little secrets are revealing themselves ...

"When they tell you who they are the first time..believe them"

Never mind, we already knew it but the revolution revelation is interesting to watch unfold

[disillusioned73]

145. Thanks for the link..

it has been interesting watching this unfold lately..

[lapucelle]

124. Brand New Congress runs Republican candidates.

So it would seem to me that (at least in some cases) they are working and raising money to elect Republicans.* That's a problematic affiliation.

It will be interesting going forward to see exactly where the money line is drawn. Will help from the national party be accepted? Help from the local party? Help from the DCCC? And, at the end of the day, because candidates running within the party depend on and benefit from the institutional structure of the party, and because that structure is funded by donations which come from myriad sources (including corporate), claims concerning eschewing certain types of money might ring more and more hollow as time goes on.

And finally, there's the problem of accepting help from dark money groups who are in no way governed by FEC disclosure rules and who are not accountable to voters concerning funding sources and donors.

These are just the basic questions that arise. Purists need to be prepared to answer them.

*"The Plan" by Brand New Congress to elect both Democrats and Republicans has been scrubbed from the current website. You can read it via the Wayback Machine.

https://brandnewcongress.org/plan
https://web.archive.org/web/20170606184712/https://brandnewcongress.org/plan

[Wwcd]

127. Very revealing post! Glad I'm a just a regular Democrat.

[brer cat]

130. Another issue is how they will govern.

From your second link:

There will be no debating or horse trading -- because BNC candidates will enter Congress agreed on a plan.

"My way or nothing" will certainly result in the latter. Calling for no compromise, demanding action where none is possible, leads to unmet expectations and disillusioned voters. Those who see themselves as "The future" still have to work in the present.

[AtomicKitten]

137. One Republican who aligned with Sanders' platform.

The basic criteria for all is they align with Sanders' platform. You can educate yourself here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_New_Congress

Edited to add their platform:

1. Several progressive organizations, including Our Revolution, Justice Democrats, Democratic Socialists of America, National Nurses United, Working Families Party, and Fight for 15, announced in July 2017 a push to encourage House Democrats to sign on to a #PeoplesPlatform, which consists of supporting "eight bills currently in the House of Representatives.

2. Medicare for All: H.R. 676 Medicare For All Act[22]

3. Free College Tuition: H.R. 1880 College for All Act of 2017[23]

4. Worker Rights: H.R.15 - Raise the Wage Act [24]

5. Women’s Rights: H.R.771 - Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act of 2017 [25]

6. Voting Rights: H.R. 2840 - Automatic Voter Registration Act[26]

7 Environmental Justice: Climate Change Bill - TBD

8. Criminal Justice and Immigrant Rights: H.R. 3227 - Justice is Not For Sale Act of 2017[27]

9. Taxing Wall Street: H.R. 1144 - Inclusive Prosperity Act[28]

[lapucelle]

142. Thanks, but I got all the context I need by reading the pages they scrubbed

from their website. I wonder why they're hiding their plan and whether donors realize that they are helping to elect Republicans.

If Brand New Congress's candidate had won his primary in Arkansas, he'd be running against a Democrat. There is still a Brand New Congress candidate running in Tennessee as an Independent. He too will be running against a Democrat.

I prefer candidates who align with the Democratic Party platform and who understand the importance of Democrats winning back the majority over candidates and organizations that would do anything in the pursuit of power.

[betsuni]

128. I'd love to know why fifteen dollars is the magic number (too low!)

Why getting money out of politics isn't electing a majority of Democrats who can change legislation. Why the ACA, the first step to universal healthcare, is so bad. Why instead of investing in early childhood education, free tuition for college (when it's too late) is best. Why marijuana is a major concern for people who don't need it for medical reasons. Why the few "conservadems" are pushed as representing all Democrats. "Centrists."

LOL.

[AtomicKitten]

138. I indicated the list was limited and thus not excluding the other issues you mention.

[George II]

129. "They don't believe in the same things....

....have their own cheering section, should be allowed to try to elect as many of their own to promote their agenda, and may the best faction win."

In other words you're all for division in the Democratic Party.

[AtomicKitten]

139. There exists division on policy which inherently divides factions.

For instance, corporate Democrats do not support Medicare for All nor single-payer because it would impede the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries' ability to put a stranglehold on the market and bleed people dry. Progressives see that as morally bankrupt.

[George II]

141. I've never seen it said "may the best faction win." The Democratic Party should not be....

....in competition with itself.

And unfortunately as we've seen all to often, and more often recently, that the faction that didn't win doesn't support those that did win. That's a big reason why we're now stuck with trump.

This isn't a baseball or football game, no one gets 100% of what they want or they go home. As true Democrats, we should ALL be in this together.

[ehrnst]

118. +1000. (nt)

[NurseJackie]

131. Thank you.

The OP went silent. Interesting. (Maybe s/he's just busy.)

[Wwcd]

132. Not many chirps heard in answer to my question.

[NCTraveler]

134. She keeps singing a sweet tune! nt

[disillusioned73]

144. k&r..

we need a lot more of her...