Pelosi Dismisses Ocasio-Cortez Wing of Democrats as ‘Like Five People’

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
3,206
1,545
615
Since guy is taking a vacation I thought I'd post one in his place, with him gone @JareBear couldn't possibly survive without a cortez injection at least twice a week. Not sure where voost found all those articles though, I only found this one that's really actually "news" per se. Maybe Voost has some insider connection to get AOC articles first. ;)

https://freebeacon.com/politics/pelosi-dismisses-ocasio-cortez-wing-of-democrats-as-like-five-people/
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) dismissed the wing of the congressional Democrats represented by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) as a mere "five people" during a 60 Minutes interview on Sunday night.
Pelosi has been profiled several times by national media outlets after her return to the Speakership after an eight-year absence. While she has received praise from the party for her legislative duels with President Donald Trump, she has had more difficulty corralling the left flank of her new House majority.
"By and large, whatever orientation they came to Congress with, they know that we have to hold the center," Pelosi said. "That we have to go down the mainstream."
Interviewer Lesley Stahl said the party looks "fractured" at times, a fair assessment given the tumult caused by Ocasio-Cortez's push for a Green New Deal—dismissed by Pelosi as a "Green Dream"—and repeated anti-Semitic and other controversial remarks by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn). Ocasio-Cortez has also taken aim at more centrist members of the party who voted with Republicans on a gun control amendment that would notify Immigrations and Customs Enforcement when an illegal immigrant tries to purchase a gun.

In the video she quickly dismisses them too, and with a "i don't even bother with them" tone. She even declared "that's not the democratic party" wow.

For someone thinking she can unify the party she sure is helping split it up more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: #Phonepunk#

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,120
15,578
665
USA
dunpachi.com
The Justice Democrats is might be a small Tea Party Movement-esque group compared to the DNC as a whole, but they are definitely not "like five people":


Why else would the DCCC enact punitive measures to stop the Justice Democrat habit of primarying sitting Democrats? You don't do this for "small" wings of your party. You do it to protect against insurgents.

 

bucyou

Member
Feb 3, 2018
796
854
235
You can tell Pelosi literally despises them, she will snipe and troll them at every opportunity.
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,049
430
785
Nancy Pelosi is like a Duck floating on a Pond. Up top she seems like she is serene and at peace, but under water, she is paddling like hell to keep control against this new current in the Democratic party.
 

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,155
3,011
485
When you guys post so many threads about AOC, are you under the impression that you are hurting her? In the macroeconomic sense.
I think it's more like game theory. Either the majority of American's, including centrists, Democrats, and independents, are repulsed by her, or the country is already lost. It's actually the media constantly giving her mention, but those opposed to her noticed the Democrats are chasing her [see sign on to the green new deal, etc], breaking the Democrats into pieces. The left choose her as an icon way too early.

There are some similarities to the Trump campaign, but one major difference. Republicans fought Trump at every turn, but his popularity beat down establishment and media both. AOC was propped up by media and establishment first, hoping to follow in Trumps controversial footsteps. But they put the cart before the horse. Then she opened her mouth.

No backsies.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,659
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
I think it's more like game theory. Either the majority of American's, including centrists, Democrats, and independents, are repulsed by her, or the country is already lost. It's actually the media constantly giving her mention, but those opposed to her noticed the Democrats are chasing her [see sign on to the green new deal, etc], breaking the Democrats into pieces. The left choose her as an icon way too early.

There are some similarities to the Trump campaign, but one major difference. Republicans fought Trump at every turn, but his popularity beat down establishment and media both. AOC was propped up by media and establishment first, hoping to follow in Trumps controversial footsteps. But they put the cart before the horse. Then she opened her mouth.

No backsies.
She opens her mouth and everyone loses their minds, much in the same way Trump's mouth can.

Trump didn't accrue 3 billion dollars worth of free media coverage by accident. And neither is AOC.
 

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,155
3,011
485
She opens her mouth and everyone loses their minds, much in the same way Trump's mouth can.

Trump didn't accrue 3 billion dollars worth of free media coverage by accident. And neither is AOC.
Right, see my second paragraph. You assume that means she isn't hurting the Democrats. Ilhan Omar is getting a lot of attention too. Is she hurting Dems?

The far left is betting that its helping not hurting them. The right is taking their odds. But again, the big difference is Trump came up from the grass roots and speaks to the working class. AOC came from media attention as a 'fresh face' and speaks to the far left and media elite.

Again, it's an easy bet. The left is already going to cover her with media attention, so ridiculing her positions rather than letting them slide makes sense if we don't believe most Americans agree with her.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,659
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
Right, see my second paragraph.
Yup, and my response to that is the observations about that merry band of never Trumpers.
But again, the big difference is Trump came up from the grass roots and speaks to the working class. AOC came from media attention as a 'fresh face' and speaks to the far left and media elite.
AOC is more grassroots than you give it credit for. You also underestimate her working class appeal. A similar situation on the liberal side would be how liberals underestimated the grassroots appeal of the Tea Party by assuming it was all astrotufing by the Koch brothers.
if we don't believe most Americans agree with her.
That is a mistake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,155
3,011
485
You mean like #NeverTrumpers?
Did you read my whole post? It literally addressed both of your responses so far.

To quote my post:

"There are some similarities to the Trump campaign, but one major difference. Republicans fought Trump at every turn, but his popularity beat down establishment and media both. AOC was propped up by media and establishment first, hoping to follow in Trumps controversial footsteps. But they put the cart before the horse. Then she opened her mouth."
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigedole

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,155
3,011
485
It is game theory. You dont win every game. It's the best move on the table, though. The media elite left immediately presented her as a superstar and fawned over her before popular appeal. Let the far left cause the left to stampede over the cliff.

This was all in my original post.

"AOC is more grassroots than you give it credit for."
Not if you look at how many votes she got in a district of Dems against no competition.

" You also underestimate her working class appeal."

The working class in America is not socialist.

" A similar situation on the liberal side would be how liberals underestimated the grassroots appeal of the Tea Party by assuming it was all astrotufing by the Koch brothers."
Everybody knew the grassroots appeal of Ron Paul. You don't get to rewrite history. The tea party got quickly coopted because people recognized how much grassroots power it had.
 
Last edited:

weltalldx

Member
Feb 25, 2017
372
455
230
You can tell Pelosi literally despises them, she will snipe and troll them at every opportunity.
The radical left are turning moderate progressives toward the republicans. Nancy knows the majority of America is moderate leaning right, occasionally shifting left when there is an issue that galvanize and mobilize the progressive voters. She also knows that socialism, open borders, and black lives matters are extremely divisive and partisan issues that will drive more moderates to the republicans.

I think she is reading the tea leaves and understands that the antics of the fringe in her party has gone too far and that the public sentiment is against the radical left right now. She is beginning to realize that the radical left is doing more harm than helping and cutting off ties with them.

Right now I would say the majority of people identify the republicans as the party standing for the American people and the democrats as the party standing for the rest of the world. She needs to get the message back that the democrats are the party of the middle class Americans, not the party of identity politics, socialism, open borders and all the lunacy nonsense that will drive more moderates to the republicans.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,659
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
Did you read my whole post? It literally addressed both of your responses so far.

To quote my post:

"There are some similarities to the Trump campaign, but one major difference. Republicans fought Trump at every turn, but his popularity beat down establishment and media both. AOC was propped up by media and establishment first, hoping to follow in Trumps controversial footsteps. But they put the cart before the horse. Then she opened her mouth."
In other words, the Never AOCs are the future Never Trumpers. In other other words, AOC's popularity will eventually beat overcome her establishment critics, but possibly not as much due to one main factor, and this is the difference that I feel is most relevant:

The GOP already had their revolution with the Tea Party, so it's proven that the GOP base can buck the establishment when it wants to, since it's done it twice already in under a decade. The DNC has a much tighter domination over their base as we see how the establishment Democrats do their best to restrict their progressive members. We've seen this already happen once in a big way with the DNC screwing Bernie in 2016.

So there's already 2 historical points in favor of the conservative base, and one historical point against the progressive base, but I think the general thrust of culture will proceed in a way that the DNC can't keep screwing over their base like they used to. They overreached in 2016 and will have to pay the consequences for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,659
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
Almost daily she exposes herself as lacking common sense and intelligence, if this is the popular face of the democratic party you want to propel, I am all for it.
Almost daily, Trump exposes himself as a racist, sexist, bad at business, mentally unstable, literally Hitler secret Russian Manchurian Candidate, if this is the popular face of the Republican Party you want to propel, I am all for it.

Yeah, that didn't work out too well for them, did it? Same story, different actors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

bucyou

Member
Feb 3, 2018
796
854
235
Almost daily, Trump exposes himself as a racist, sexist, bad at business, mentally unstable, literally Hitler secret Russian Manchurian Candidate, if this is the popular face of the Republican Party you want to propel, I am all for it.

Yeah, that didn't work out too well for them, did it? Same story, different actors.

Considering one was elected president and one won a tiny district for a house seat and beat a guy who lives in another state and didnt campaign.....

You arent sending your best, as the president would say
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,659
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
Considering one was elected president and one won a tiny district for a house seat and beat a guy who lives in another state and didnt campaign.....
That hasn't stopped the media and the relative establishment response from reacting in the same way. The differences you point out are a matter of scale, not substance.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
3,206
1,545
615
Trump didn't accrue 3 billion dollars worth of free media coverage by accident. And neither is AOC.
First of all you defend AOC in almost every AOC thread but without actually adding content, just being snarky.

Second the DNC covered Trump ON PURPOSE as it was shown in the wikileaks, the whole plan was to give him as much coverage as possible because they though it would help the GOP lose. AOC was bumped up by socialists, and democrats that wanted to pretend they were anti-establishment until she and Omar opened their mouths for longer than 3 seconds.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,659
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
First of all you defend AOC in almost every AOC thread but without actually adding content, just being snarky.
It's not my fault you can't see the difference between analysis and snark. Oldgaf thought my "defense" of Trump 4 years ago was lacking substance too. Maybe this time I'm wrong, but I'm seeing the same shit.

Second the DNC covered Trump ON PURPOSE as it was shown in the wikileaks, the whole plan was to give him as much coverage as possible because they though it would help the GOP lose. AOC was bumped up by socialists, and democrats that wanted to pretend they were anti-establishment until she and Omar opened their mouths for longer than 3 seconds.
And when their pied piper strategy didn't work, they're still giving him wall to wall coverage and freaking out over everything he does. It doesn't matter.

Also, how are AOC and Omar "pretending" to be anti establishment if the actual establishment keeps throwing them under the bus?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,659
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
Try actually reading my quote since I never said this.
Let me rephrase it differently since you're being such a stickler over sematics:

How are Democrats pretending they are anti-establishment when they don't have to pretend? Because they're actually anti-establishment. No pretending needed.
 
Last edited:

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
3,206
1,545
615
Let me rephrase it differently since you're being such a stickler over sematics:

How are Democrats pretending they are anti-establishment when they don't have to pretend? Because they're actually anti-establishment. No pretending needed.
There is no rephrasing, you read poorly, you clearly posted that you thought I said Ocasio and Omar where pretending to be anti-establishment. There aren't any semantics (or in your case sematics), you're just trying really hard to act like your smart in these threads. Even with this post you double down on it with different words. The post doesn't even come close to saying Ocasio and Omar where pretending to be anti-establishment.

Let me break down your terrible reading comprehension:

AOC was bumped up by socialists, and democrats that wanted to pretend they were anti-establishment until she and Omar opened their mouths for longer than 3 seconds.
I would make the text bigger for you but that's the maximum size. I used a green color to try and help guide you, hope this clears things up.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,659
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
you're just trying really hard to act like your smart in these threads.
Oh dear :(

You gonna answer my question about the validity of your assertion that Democrats pretended they were anti-establishment, or are you going to cry more about the very important difference between "wanting to pretend" and just "pretend"?
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
3,206
1,545
615
Oh dear :(

You gonna answer my question about the validity of your assertion that Democrats pretended they were anti-establishment, or are you going to cry more about the very important difference between "wanting to pretend" and just "pretend"?
I like how you still don't get what I actually wrote and are just trying to dance around the mistake now while playing semantics. I never said AOC or Omar were pretending to be anti-establishment and that was the whole core of your argument and still is based on your replies. The word pretend was never applied to those two people and the fact even big letters can't help is is a pretty bad look. The fact you decided to not own up to that error and instead tried to play it off like YOU meant something else is pathetic.

But this whole thing was based on your garbage Trump comparison anyway. Completely ill-though out and pointless.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,659
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
I never said AOC or Omar were pretending to be anti-establishment and that was the whole core of your argument and still is based on your replies. The word pretend was never applied to those two people and the fact even big letters can't help is is a pretty bad look.
You didn't, which is why I clarified my question to:

How are Democrats pretending they are anti-establishment when they don't have to pretend? Because they're actually anti-establishment. No pretending needed.
in an attempt to get the discussion back on track. You can continue to talk, or continue to be triggered, your choice.
 

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,155
3,011
485
. Maybe this time I'm wrong, but I'm seeing the same shit.


And when their pied piper strategy didn't work, they're still giving him wall to wall coverage and freaking out over everything he does. It doesn't matter.

The critical failure of your comparison is that you're not recognizing the fundamental differences between the two.

Trump's popularity was grassroots and in spite of a wholly negative media, a party that literally split into nevertrumpers over him, etc.

AOC was clearly backed by the media elite. Her candidacy and election wasn't grassroots, but specifically developed by Justice Democrats who are on record specifically talking about how they need to ignore grassroots and instead primary weak districts by misleading voters that simply click Democrat in Democrat strongholds because educating them wasn't worth the time or effort. The sauce for those quotes can be found in mr Reagan's expose on AOC.

It's not just not grassroots, it was anti-grass roots.

Trump led his party to victory despite his party. AOC is most likely leading the Democrats off a cliff because they are chasing her, not defying her.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
2,771
3,352
250
This is all based off of a comparison between AOC and Trump, which is ridiculous on it's face. They aren't the same, at all.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,659
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
The critical failure of your comparison is that you're not recognizing the fundamental differences between the two.

Trump's popularity was grassroots and in spite of a wholly negative media, a party that literally split into nevertrumpers over him, etc.

AOC was clearly backed by the media elite. Her candidacy and election wasn't grassroots, but specifically developed by Justice Democrats who are on record specifically talking about how they need to ignore grassroots and instead primary weak districts by misleading voters that simply click Democrat in Democrat strongholds because educating them wasn't worth the time or effort. The sauce for those quotes can be found in mr Reagan's expose on AOC.

It's not just not grassroots, it was anti-grass roots.

Trump led his party to victory despite his party. AOC is most likely leading the Democrats off a cliff because they are chasing her, not defying her.
Banding together the base of like minded individuals in order to primary someone of the same party is a legitimate political strategy. I saw Reagan's video and his gotchas are a bunch of nothingburgers. If he has a problem with that strategy then maybe he has a problem with the Tea Party primarying the establishment Republicans back in 2010 too.

You should recognize the political tactic of those who don't understand their opponents. Since they disagree with their philosophy and cannot understand why they are so popular, they make up reasons to explain that the candidate themselves have no agency.

For example,

Dubya can't be successful because he's an idiot and Cheney is pulling the strings anyway.

Trump can't have won legitimately because he's an unstable racist who colluded with Russia.

AOC is a puppet because she came out of nowhere and has a team, so she can't possibly be this successful or popular or have her own opinions.


Most reasonable people might step back, assess the whole situation, and think, you know, maybe these candidates actually are popular enough to earn enough votes in enough places to get them the win. To now acknowledge these candidates' own agency and their own potential is to underestimate them. (overdue influence of money in politics arguments aside)
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
2,771
3,352
250
Banding together the base of like minded individuals in order to primary someone of the same party is a legitimate political strategy. I saw Reagan's video and his gotchas are a bunch of nothingburgers. If he has a problem with that strategy then maybe he has a problem with the Tea Party primarying the establishment Republicans back in 2010 too.

You should recognize the political tactic of those who don't understand their opponents. Since they disagree with their philosophy and cannot understand why they are so popular, they make up reasons to explain that the candidate themselves have no agency.

For example,

Dubya can't be successful because he's an idiot and Cheney is pulling the strings anyway.

Trump can't have won legitimately because he's an unstable racist who colluded with Russia.

AOC is a puppet because she came out of nowhere and has a team, so she can't possibly be this successful or popular or have her own opinions.


Most reasonable people might step back, assess the whole situation, and think, you know, maybe these candidates actually are popular enough to earn enough votes in enough places to get them the win. To now acknowledge these candidates' own agency and their own potential is to underestimate them. (overdue influence of money in politics arguments aside)
Yeah you totally missed the point of Mr. Reagan's critique against AOC.

No one said her win wasn't legitimate.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,659
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
Yeah you totally missed the point of Mr. Reagan's critique against AOC.
The point that she's a puppet? That she's coached? That she's controlled by that Indian dude? That her group was founded by Cenk from TYT? That she "auditioned" for the role? That they're doing shady campaign finance practices?

What did I miss here?
 

bucyou

Member
Feb 3, 2018
796
854
235
Again, the scale you are using compares 2 presidents who won national elections to a house member who won a district of 140k votes. You said yourself

maybe these candidates actually are popular enough to earn enough votes in enough places to get them the win
So where else is she going to "win"? I'll show you some places she wont

 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,659
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
Again, the scale you are using compares 2 presidents who won national elections to a house member who won a district of 140k votes. You said yourself



So where else is she going to "win"? I'll show you some places she wont

Um, her district? Any national wins will be gauged by the number of establishment Democrats who get voted out in primaries in the future.

The presidents got enough votes to win in the contest they were competing for. AOC got enough votes to win in the contest she was competing for. They played by the rules they were given, and they won. What part about that do you not understand?
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
2,771
3,352
250
The point that she's a puppet? That she's coached? That she's controlled by that Indian dude? That her group was founded by Cenk from TYT? That she "auditioned" for the role? That they're doing shady campaign finance practices?

What did I miss here?
The point that she represents literally no one. She isn't like Trump, who ran to populist republicans to build his base, and he built his policies around them. She primaried a dem in a safe blue district with no competition, She won because by virtue of putting her name on the ballot next to a D. That is not what makes a national politician.

The justice Democrats just use her as a vessel to get their ideas out in the mainstream, to force the national conversation in the direction they want. Great for JD, not great for AOC's electoral future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
3,206
1,545
615
You didn't, which is why I clarified my question to:
You didn't clarify shit, your question is still based on the belief my post stated that AOC-type democrats are pretending to be anti-establishment, which is why you also mentioned that "the establishment was fighting them". Issue is your original reading of my post is still wrong and always has been. This is why you started out thinking I was talking about AOC and Omar than backpedaled, because you thought I was saying socialist democrats where pretending to be establishment, and then trying to point out the establishment was after them to try and "own me" even though I never made that statement.

If you actually read the post you wouldn't be so confused and you'd be asking valid questions.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,659
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
The point that she represents literally no one. She isn't like Trump, who ran to populist republicans to build his base, and he built his policies around them. She primaried a dem in a safe blue district with no competition, She won because by virtue of putting her name on the ballot next to a D. That is not what makes a national politician.

The justice Democrats just use her as a vessel to get their ideas out in the mainstream, to force the national conversation in the direction they want. Great for JD, not great for AOC's electoral future.
She represents the people who voted for her. She got support among the progressive base to promote a populist progressive agenda. Your dislike for that agenda is making you think that no one could possibly support it, thus making her actual support suspicious to you.

She won the contest she was playing for. That's how the game works. Trump won the contest he was playing for. Dems are gonna cry about the popular vote or how many people didn't vote at all, but that doesn't matter. They both won the game under the rules of the game. You can criticize the way she won, but the point is moot because she already won.

Her national footprint is big, due to her social media following and her ease at dominating the news cycle. It remains to be seen if that translates to her reelection chances, but we'll see. If she loses, then maybe you're right. We'll cross that bridge when we reach it.

And about that national media footprint - are you guys disagreeing that MSNBC and CNN whining about Trump and giving him airtime is working out well for him in the same way that Fox News whining about AOC is helping her?
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
3,206
1,545
615
Maybe you're the one who needs reading lessons? :messenger_grimmacing_
So instead of again, owning up to a mistake, you make a one sentence post with no content about me accidentally forgetting to add "anti" in one post because you literally have nothing left and are nothing but trash?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,659
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
So instead of again, owning up to a mistake, you make a one sentence post with no content about me accidentally forgetting to add "anti" in one post because you literally have nothing left and are nothing but trash?
I have nothing and am trash? Harsh, bro :messenger_sad_relieved:

Check out the conversations I'm having with auto, oagi, and buc up above as a model. It's friendly, and we get a lot of points across.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
3,206
1,545
615
I have nothing and am trash? Harsh, bro :messenger_sad_relieved:

Check out the conversations I'm having with auto, oagi, and buc up above as a model. It's friendly, and we get a lot of points across.
You haven't gotten one point across this whole thread, and you continue to dodge your reading comprehension mistake while going in circles. People see what you're doing.
 
Oct 26, 2018
2,153
1,549
230
If 5 people are ruining the party, shouldn't it be possible the other 95 liberal politicians be able to keep AOC in check?
 

ViceUniverse

Member
Mar 12, 2019
184
70
150
I actually like Ocasio for her ability to stand out, rather than being like the herd. But that's about the only thing that I like about her.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
2,771
3,352
250
She represents the people who voted for her. She got support among the progressive base to promote a populist progressive agenda. Your dislike for that agenda is making you think that no one could possibly support it, thus making her actual support suspicious to you.
15k people in a blue district in new york city. So fucking what?

She won the contest she was playing for. That's how the game works. Trump won the contest he was playing for. Dems are gonna cry about the popular vote or how many people didn't vote at all, but that doesn't matter. They both won the game under the rules of the game. You can criticize the way she won, but the point is moot because she already won.
And this is why I said you missed Reagan's point. Her winning her district is meaningless. She didn't go through some intense campaign. She breezed in through an easy primary win, winning as a democrat in a democrat district.

Her national footprint is big, due to her social media following and her ease at dominating the news cycle. It remains to be seen if that translates to her reelection chances, but we'll see. If she loses, then maybe you're right. We'll cross that bridge when we reach it.

And about that national media footprint - are you guys disagreeing that MSNBC and CNN whining about Trump and giving him airtime is working out well for him in the same way that Fox News whining about AOC is helping her?
AOC's media footprint is big because she and the JD have isely branded themselves as the face of the new generation of freshmen democratic congressman who are very brazen and open with their hostility to the trump administration and the current democratic party structure. They are attracting the most news coverage because they are doing the most outlandish things, whether it be the green new deal, or killing the amazon jobs deal, or the recent 9/11 comments with Omar, or whatever. That is what grabs the headlines, and the twitter followers.

Notice what AOC doesn't have have are house votes for anything.


This idea that negative press coverage actually helps you is a ridiculous theory. MSNBC attacking Trump is not getting Trump votes. Likewise, AOC is not secretly becoming popular because of Fox News
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,659
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
15k people in a blue district in new york city. So fucking what?

And this is why I said you missed Reagan's point. Her winning her district is meaningless. She didn't go through some intense campaign. She breezed in through an easy primary win, winning as a democrat in a democrat district.
And I'm saying that I hear his point and I disagree. She beat an incumbent out of nowhere. He was an entrenched establishment Democratic incumbent with lots of money and lots of allies in high places, and yet the people who matter in the Democratic primary voted him out. That's the game, and she played it. In the context of just her district, that is significant. In the context of the entire house, maybe not so much because she's only one member. However, if her team secures more Justice Democrat wins in more seats, they'll have a solid movement on their hands. Or maybe they won't. It's too early to see.

They propose big ideas, and the conservative media run around with their hair on fire, feeding into the news cycle mindshare. Headlines and social media buzz aren't votes, but they can lead to votes in another year if they play their cards right.

This idea that negative press coverage actually helps you is a ridiculous theory. MSNBC attacking Trump is not getting Trump votes. Likewise, AOC is not secretly becoming popular because of Fox News
Opposition attacks are attention, and attention can come from supporters, detractors, or potential supporters/detractors. It's one step better than being unaware of their existence at all.